Tag: protect

Saving Rattlesnakes From Development

  • Veterinarian Dr. Tara Harrison operates on an Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake to implant a radio transmitter for tracking in the wild. (Photo by Chris McCarus)

The Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake used to be found all over the Midwest. Now there’s only one state where the population is fairly healthy, but even there it’s threatened by rapid development. A group of scientists is trying to protect the snake before all of its habitat is gone.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris McCarus reports:

Transcript

The Eastern Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake used to be found all over the Midwest. Now there’s only one state where the population is fairly healthy. But even there, it’s threatened by rapid development. A group of scientists is trying to protect the snake before all of its habitat is gone. The GLRC’s Chris McCarus reports:


(Sound of snake rattling)


A team of veterinarians and researchers is pulling an Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake from a bag. They put the snake on an operating table. Then the doctor snips open the skin.


“Okay, so I’m into the abdominal cavity.”


She’s putting a radio transmitter the size of a AA battery into the snake’s belly. This will allow them to track the snake’s movement in the wild for the next two years.
Kristin Wildman is a graduate student at Michigan State University. She catches and tracks the snakes. She’s involved in a project with federal, state and university biologists. They’re trying to protect the Massasauga.


She thinks of the snakes as being much like herself. She identifies with their personalities. Wildman says these snakes are just modest. They don’t like to attract attention and don’t like to hurt anybody.


“Like with this snake, she’s one of the bitier snakes I have in this study. And she only strikes the tongs – the snake tongs – because I’m grabbing her with the snake tongs. It just kind of gives you an idea. They don’t really strike unless you’re messing with them, unless they have a really good reason to, or unless they’re harassed enough that they feel they need to.”


Although it would rather avoid you, if you’re bitten by a Massasauga Rattler, its venom can kill you.


But it can’t fight people destroying its habitat.


Mike DeCapita is with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He and other experts say rapid development is the snake’s biggest enemy. It’s not only destroying the snake’s habitat, it’s also destroying other wildlife habitat.


“The Massasauga is sort of an indicator species or a keystone species; perhaps that if we adjust so that we protect the needs of the Massasauga then all those species that use that same type of habitat also are protected.”


The onslaught of development has made the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake a candidate for the endangered species list, though it’s not on the list yet.


(Sound of hammering and cement mixing)


A new subdivision is being built in suburban Detroit. It’s just beyond the gate of a park where the research team came to study Massasauga habitat.


(Sound of people walking on a trail and talking)


Andy Hertz works for the State Department of Environmental Quality. He has the authority to refuse a building permit to anyone who could hurt Massasaugas.


“This is part of an effort of making us more aware of the habitat the Massasauga’s found in, so hopefully, we can direct developers and landowners to stay away from these more sensitive areas.”


In the winter, the Massasauga joins the frogs and turtles. They hibernate in marshes about two feet underground. Then, in spring and summer, they’ll seek higher ground for feeding. They can’t survive if they can’t move back and forth between their summer and wintering grounds. The research team has figured out this rule for minimizing damage to the snake’s habitat: don’t tamper with wetlands in winter nor the uplands in summer.


The team is focusing on Michigan to see why the population is the healthiest there. Then perhaps they can understand how to protect the rattlers in the rest of the Midwest where they’re nearly wiped out.


While she’s looking for more snakes, graduate student Kristin Wildman laughs about how a woman once called her to take a Massasauga away from the side of her house.


“We said, ‘Well, we’ll come out and we’ll move it for you.’ And we usually just move it down into the nearest wetland, down the hill. We pull in and she lives on Rattlesnake Drive. I didn’t expect to move out here and have all these rattlesnakes and stuff. It’s like, you live on Rattlesnake Drive. It’s called that for a reason.”


Wildman says when people come into conflict with wildlife, the wildlife almost always loses. If the Massasauga Rattler is going to survive it will take constant attention from all kinds of experts. They’ll have to stop developers from building over the snake’s habitat and threatening its existence.


For the GLRC, I’m Chris McCarus.

Related Links

Audubon Society Cheers Congress for Bird Law

  • The European Starling, an invasive species, has been pushing woodpeckers out of their nests and preventing them from breeding. The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act will help reduce populations of non-native bird species. (Photo by Louis Rock)

The National Audubon Society is praising Congress for strengthening protections for American migratory birds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:

Transcript

The National Audubon Society is praising Congress for strengthening protections for American migratory birds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:


The U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act was passed in 1917 to protect native birds, such as the woodpecker, the Baltimore Oriole, and the American Black Duck. But a court ruling earlier this year changed the law, by extending protections to all birds, including non-native species. National Audubon Society spokesman John Bianchi says invasive species like the European Starling are pushing out native birds.


“That is hard for people to understand, but the equation there is that pushing out means killing. A European Starling pushing a woodpecker out of its nest means that that woodpecker will not breed that year.”


As part of a recent spending bill, Congress amended the law to once again only protect native migratory birds. That provides millions of dollars a year for protection efforts, which can include trapping and removing non-native birds, or killing them.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

Solution for Arsenic in Drinking Water?

  • Researchers from the University of Illinois have discovered a way to remove arsenic from drinking water at its source. (photo by David Guglielmo)

Researchers believe they have found a way to reduce
arsenic levels in drinking water. They say, for people to drink water from wells or aquifers, the solution starts at the source. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jeff Bossert explains:

Transcript

Researchers believe they have found a way to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water. They say, for people to drink water from wells or aquifers, the solution starts at the source. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jeff Bossert explains:


Chronic exposure to arsenic in drinking water has been linked to a variety of health concerns, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.


Researchers from the University of Illinois collected groundwater samples from 21 wells. They found that the wells with almost no arsenic in the water also contained high levels of sulphate-reducing bacteria, which convert the arsenic into a solid, where it drops out of the water. Dr. Craig Bethke led the study.


“What we’re saying is that if there’s sulfate in the water, then there’s probably sulfate-reducing bacteria active in the subsurface, and that means that a simple field test, which is very inexpensive and very rapid to protect sulfate, could identify safe water sources.”


Bethke says places where aresenic levels are high, sulphate salts, such as gypsum and calcium sulphate, can be injected underground to reduce arsenic levels.


Researchers say this information could prove to be invaluable in places where aresenic contamination is a major problem, including parts of the U.S., Australia, and Mongolia. The researchers’ findings were published in the journal Geology.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jeff Bossert.

Related Links

Relief on the Horizon for Allergy Sufferers?

  • To those who may recoil in terror from this picture, relief from peanut allergies may just be a vaccine away. (Photo by Mike Froese)

A new vaccine that reduces food allergies in dogs could
some day help people who suffer dangerous reactions to food like
peanuts, milk and wheat. The vaccine is also more evidence in
support of the so-called “hygiene hypothesis.” The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

A new vaccine that reduces food allergies in dogs could some day help people who suffer
dangerous reactions to food like peanuts, milk and wheat. The vaccine is also more
evidence in support of the so-called “hygiene hypothesis.” The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:


Allergies to foods like peanuts have become much more common over the past 20 years.
Some researchers believe it’s because, as a hygiene-conscious society, we’re no
longer exposing our bodies to infections that stimulate the immune system and protect
us from allergies. Pediatrician Dale Umetsu of Stanford University mixed a component
of Listeria bacterium and peanuts into a vaccine. He then gave it to dogs
with allergies so severe that one peanut made them sick.


“After the treatment, the dogs could tolerate up, on average, to 30 to 40 peanuts,
so this was quite an increase and the effect lasted several months, at least,
after the treatment.”


Umetsu says it could be five years or more before a vaccine is available for human trials.
A vaccine could help millions of people with food allergies.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Companies Push for Forest Certification

  • Magazine publishers and other companies are thinking ahead and getting their paper from forests that have been certified. But what does this really mean? (Photo by Stanley Elliott)

Officials in the Midwest want to prove they’re not damaging their state forests. States that sell timber to paper companies are spending thousands of dollars to earn a certificate that says they’re managing the forests in a sustainable way. Paper producers are demanding that state foresters earn certification because officials want to stave off protests from consumers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:

Transcript

Officials in the Midwest want to prove they’re not damaging their state forests. States that sell timber to paper companies are spending thousand of dollars to earn a certificate that says they’re managing the forests in a sustainable way. Paper producers are demanding that state foresters earn certification because officials want to stave off protests from consumers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:


It’s lunchtime and employees on break from Compuware in downtown Detroit are browisng through the magazine racks at Borders. Melody Kranz says she reads three different magazines every month. She says she is an avid recycler and an impassioned environmentalist, but never considered what kind of paper was going into her magazines.


“I don’t know why I haven’t thought about it, I just haven’t. I will now. Because I’m a gardening nut, I love to garden. So yeah, I just never really thought about it.”


But executive David Refkin is betting that Franz and others like her would think twice before picking up Time Magazine if they thought a forest was demolished to make the paper. Refkin is the Director of Sustainable Development for Time Incorporated. He says he’s noticed a strong surge in environmental awareness over the past two or three years.


“We don’t want people looking at a magazine and feeling guilty that a stream has been damaged and the fish are dying in there, or that habitats aren’t being protected because people are practicing bad forestry practices.”


Refkin says his company wants to take action now, before consumer groups decide to boycott its magazines over ecological issues. Time uses more coated paper for its publications than any other company in the U.S. The company is asking that 80 percent of all paper products Time buys be certified by 2006.


To the average consumer, that may not seem like big news. But for paper producers and foresters, it’s earth shattering. Larry Pedersen is with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Pedersen says getting certified means years of work for state employees. The government has to prove to investigators that its management standards take into account issues such as biodiversity, water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat. Pedersen says the state is also required to provide records for each tree from the moments it’s planted or inventoried to the time it’s cut down and then made into planks or paper. But he says it’s worth the effort.


“A number of wood and paper-using companies brought it to our attention that they needed to have certified products because their consumers were demanding those. And with us having four-million acres of state forestlands, we saw the writing on the wall that we needed to jump on this.”


State forests in the region generate a lot of revenue. Wisconsin’s forests earn two and a half million dollars from timber sales and Ohio pulls in almost three million. Michigan’s forests bring in 30 million dollars annually. Earlier this year, Michigan’s Governor Jennifer Granholm announced that all state forests will be certified by January 1st of 2006. And the Great Lakes State is not alone… New York, Wisconsin, and Maine are also pursuing certification and Ohio and other states are considering it.


Andrew Shalit, with the environmental activist group Ecopledge, says he’s glad Time Warner is encouraging paper companies and state governments to get certified. But he says that doesn’t necessarily mean the paper is produced in an environmentally friendly way.


“It’s great to say that they’re going to get all of their paper from certified forests. The question is, who is certifying? And in the case of Time Warner, a lot of the forests are certified by a group called SFI, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and their standards are so weak as to be almost meaningless.”


There’s a heated debate over just what certification means. There are currently two groups that certify forests in the U.S. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative, or SFI, was originally founded by the timber industry but is now an independent body. The Forest Stewardship council, or FSC, came out of the environmental movement… or more specifically, out of the effort to protect South American rainforests. Shalit says he doesn’t think SFI certification is as rigorous or as comprehensive as FSC.


“It really is a problem for the consumer because you see something in the store and it has a little green label on it with a picture of a tree and it says sustainably certified, and you think you’re buying something good. It’s hard for the individual consumer to keep up with that.”


Shalit says several states, like Michigan, have solved the dilemma of rival certification programs by getting dual certification. he says although the system has flaws, it will improve if consumers demand more stringent forestry regulations.


Executives at Time Warner hope they can avoid boycotts and pickets by taking action preemptively. The company is leading the push for forest certification in the U.S., and environmentalists say the federal government may have to bow to pressure eventually and get the national forests certified as well.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.

Related Links

Roadblocks for Water Diversion Agreement?

  • The Annex 2001 Agreement discusses how much and to whom the water from the Great Lakes is going. Ontario objects to the current Agreement in fear that it doesn't do enough to protect the Lakes. (Photo by Kym Parry)

Ontario provincial leaders say they’re not willing to sign
a draft agreement aimed at protecting the Great Lakes from diversion in its current form. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, observers say Ontario’s objections won’t sidetrack negotiations on the agreement known as the Great Lakes Charter
Annex:

Transcript

Ontario provincial leaders say they’re not willing to sign a draft agreement aimed at protecting the Lakes from water diversions in its current form. Observeers say the objections won’t sidetrack negotiations on the agreement known as the Great Lakes Charter Annex. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has this report:


The Charter Annex would give the eight states and two provinces that surround the Lakes a say in how much water can be diverted out of the Lakes to other regions. But Ontario officials say they don’t think the current draft goes far enough to protect the Lakes. David Natzger is with the Council of Great Lakes Governors, which is coordinating negotiations bewteent he states and provinces to implement the Annex. Natzger says the announcement reflects healthy debate, and not a snag in the process.


“I think it says that there’s a lot of interest in this issue in Ontario, and certainly there were some concerns that were raised in the public comment period, and they will be taken into consideration as changes are considered and made, ultimately.”


In January, the staffs of the Great Lakes governors and premiers plan to start negotiating changes to the Annex. Natzger says the changes will reflect some of the concerns brought forward in ten-thousand public comments.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Mining vs. Old-Growth Forest

  • Dysart Woods in southeast Ohio is an old-growth forest. Many of the trees are more than 300 years old. (Photo courtesy of dysartwoods.org)

The need for cheap energy is coming into conflict
with efforts to preserve a forest. Coal mining companies are using a technique that causes the land to subside and sometimes changes natural underground water systems. Environmentalists say mining underneath a forest preserve could destroy the ecosystem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports on environmental activists who are defending the
forest:

Transcript

The need for cheap energy is coming into conflict with efforts to preserve a forest.
Coal mining companies are using a technique that causes the land to subside and sometimes
change natural underground water systems. Environmentalists say mining underneath a forest
preserve could destroy the ecosystem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lisa Ann Pinkerton
reports on environmental activists who are defending the forest:


For decades, the coal mining industry has been using a technique of extraction called
long wall mining. Industry officials say it’s the most effective way to get the bituminous
coal out of the ground. In traditional room and pillar mining, the land above is not disturbed.
But the long wall machine leaves no support for the 1000-foot tunnel created in its wake. After
the coal is extracted, the ground caves in, causing the land to sink.


Dysart Woods, in southeastern Ohio, is slated for such a fate. The conservation group,
Buckeye Forest Council, wants to block the woods from mining. Its members believe long
wall mining will destroy the old-growth forest. The four hundred and fifty acres, fifty-five
acres of the trees are more than 300 years old. Fred Gittis is an attorney who has volunteered
his services to protect the woods.


“And these woods are precious, and they are among the last old-growth forest areas remaining,
not only in Ohio, but in this part of the country. Recently a documentary was filmed in Dysart Woods, because it has some of the conditions that would have existed at the time of George
Washington’s life.”


Gittis argues state should repeal the mining permit granted for Dysart Woods. Ohio Valley
Coal was granted the permit in 2001. As steward of the woods, Ohio University disputed the
permit for three years. But last November, it agreed to drop its appeal, in exchange for $10,000 from the state to study the forest’s water, as it is undermined. Ohio Valley
Coal Company would drill the wells needed. But the Buckeye Forest Council says a study doesn’t
solve the problem.


“First of all it is just a water monitoring project. It offers no protection to the woods.
Second of all, they don’t have the base line data right now to compare to what it normal.”


That’s Susan Heikler, Executive Director of the Buckeye Forest Council. When Ohio University
accepted the mining permit, her organization took up the fight. The group worked with lawyer
Fred Gittis and nationally known experts to review the science of the Coal Company’s mining
plan. Gittis says the Council’s experts were not impressed.


And, both hydrogeologists and mining experts have indicated that the basic science related
to this mining permit is, not to be insulting but, junk.”


The plan calls for long wall mining within 300 feet of the old-growth forest. However,
experts from the Buckeye Forest Council say a 1500 foot buffer around the woods
is the only way to insure the protection of the hydrology – the natural water system that
sustains the forest.


In a major concession two years ago, the Coal Company agreed not to long wall mine directly
under Dysart Woods. Instead, room and pillar mining is planned. The Company says that will
delay subsidence for centuries to come. Attorney Fred Gittis says without core samples from
directly under the woods, the company doesn’t have the data to back up this claim.


“If you don’t know what that rock is, if it’s soft like claystone or shale, it can collapse.
And so its pretty basic stuff.”


Attorneys for the company declined to be interviewed for this story. In statements, the
Company defends its lack of data by pointing to exemptions they were granted by the Department
of Mineral Resources. The Company stands by its assertion that, quote, “trees and other surface
vegetation will absolutely not be affected by mining.” But in September, the story changed. In
court, a mining consultant for the company, Hanjie Chen, testified that the forest floor would
sink 5 inches. Attorneys for Ohio Valley Coal abruptly stopped his testimony after this
statement. But Gittis says the damage to the coal company’s case is already done.


Although Buckeye Forest Council rested its case in July, the defendant, Ohio Valley Coal is
still adding witnesses and dragging out the case. Fred Gittis says the Company is trying to
exhaust the Buckeye Forest Council’s legal funding. He adds that this is why he volunteers his
expertise.


For the time being, mining under the old growth forest has been pushed back until the hearings
conclude in November.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lisa Ann Pinkerton.

Related Links

Holy Grail of Great Lakes Shipwrecks Found?

  • For a long time, anything any diver salvaged could be claimed as his or her own. Since the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, anything divers find on public land remains public. But a new discovery may bend some rules. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

A shipwreck hunter believes he might have found what’s been described as the Holy Grail of Great Lakes wrecks. His find has triggered a new debate over who can lay claim to historic shipwrecks and what should happen to them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:

Transcript

A shipwreck hunter believes he might have found what’s been described as the Holy Grail of Great Lakes wrecks. His find has triggered a new debate over who can lay claim to historic shipwrecks and what should happen to them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:


Of the thousands of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, the wreck of the Griffin is probably the most legendary. For a few reasons. She was built by somebody legendary – French explorer Rene-Robert Cavalier Sieur de La Salle, she was the first European ship to sail the Upper Great Lakes… and she was the first to sink. Actually, she sank on her maiden voyage in 1769, not exactly one of La Salle’s bigger success stories. But the mystery she left behind is pretty big – and it has pretty well flummoxed Great Lakes historians for hundreds of years. Shipwreck scholar Steven Herald is the director of the Manistee County Historical Museum.


“The Griffin loaded its first and only freight cargo downbound at Green Bay, and there has never been a reliable report of anyone who has seen the vessel since. It left Green Bay and disappeared totally.”


Did she run aground? Sink to the bottom of Lake Michigan? No one knows, But Steven Libert, a long-time shipwreck hunter, thinks he might have found a clue. What he’s excited about appears to be a long, wooden pole sticking out of the sand in about 80 feet of water in northwestern Lake Michigan. It doesn’t look like much. But Rick Robol, the attorney for Libert’s company Great Lakes Exploration, says tests indicate it could date back to the 17th century. And it could be part of a ship.


“Great Lakes Exploration does not know at this point what is there. And it does not know whether in fact it is the Griffin or not. Certainly if it were the Griffin, it would be a very substantial find.”


Great Lakes Exploration has filed suit in federal court seeking salvage rights to the site. But the site is in Michigan waters and the state has filed a motion to have the case dismissed. State archaeologist John Halsey says whatever there is should belong to the public, not a private company.


“They have the money to go out and look, they have the money to go out and find, but what they don’t have is the permission to bring stuff up. That’s where the rubber meets the road.”


The state argues the Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 gives any state title to historic wrecks in its waters. Before its passage, pretty much anybody in a rubber suit could salvage shipwrecks. And they did – the evidence is rusting out in garages across the country. The federal law sought to protect these historic sites – which, in the cold fresh water of the Great Lakes, are often well-preserved time capsules. But Wisconsin shipwreck researcher, Brendon Baillod, says a number of cases have already shown the law is full of technical loopholes if you have the money and time to challenge it.


“We have a lot of wrecks that are open game legally. It really is up to the judge who gets the case before them.”


If Great Lakes Exploration does clear the legal hurdles, the next question will be academic. What should happen to their findings? Attorney Rick Robol says it all depends on what’s there.


“Really, shipwrecks have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There are some shipwrecks that may best remain in situ, that is, on site, and there are other that should be recovered. It’s impossible to determine what’s best for a particular wreck without first scientifically studying it.”


At this stage, it’s anybody’s guess as to whether the site contains the remains of a ship or just a pile of very old scrapwood. But preservationists such as historian Steven Herald, argue anything of historical value should really just be left there.


“I’m a great one for leaving it where it is and studying it in as much detail as possible. The easiest way to preserve it is to keep it there.”


One thing is certain, any excavation would likely involve many years and millions of dollars. Oh, and there’s another possibility too, if in fact the Griffin is found. Technically, the vessel still belongs to France, which was in charge around here after all at the time of La Salle’s adventures.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sally Eisele.

Related Links

Part 2: Selling the Right to Develop Farmland

  • Farm museums like this one are sometimes the only remnant of the agricultural life that has been overrun by development. However, some communities are buying farmers' development rights in an effort to save the rural landscape. (Photo by Lester Graham)

One way to keep farms from becoming subdivisions is to pay the farmers to never build on their land. This has been happening on the east and west coasts for decades. But it’s just now beginning to catch on in the Great Lakes region. In the second of a two part series on farmers and the decisions they make about their land, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette takes us to a place where local government is paying to keep land in agriculture:

Transcript

One way to keep farms from becoming subdivisions is to pay the farmers to never
build on their land. This has been happening on the east and west coasts for
decades. But it’s just now beginning to catch on in the Great Lakes region. In
the second of a two part series on farmers and the decisions they make about
their land, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette takes us to a place
where local government is paying to keep land in agriculture:


Whitney Lyon’s farm has been in his family for more than a century. He has 100
acres of cherry and apple trees. The orchards are on a peninsula that stretches
fourteen miles across a bay in Northern Lake Michigan. His farm is about a half
mile from the clear blue water that attracts thousands of tourists here every
year.


Lyon says real estate agents love his property.


“We run clean back to the bay on the north side… that’s view property. It’s
worth 30, 40,000 bucks an acre.”


But it’s not worth that much anymore. The rights to build houses on the Lyon farm have
been sold. The way this works is this: the Lyon’s keep the land, but they get paid
for the real estate value they give up to keep the land as a farm instead of house
sites.


(sound of apple picking)


There’s a thick fog across the peninsula today. Whitney Lyon is picking apples. His
wife Mary is inside watching kids. Mary says the day they sold the development
rights was the best day in their thirty years of farm life. She says she knew they’d
be able to stay on the land. And because of the money they made, she downsized her
daycare business.


“The big change, especially the last two or three years, I no longer just buy stuff
from just garage sales. I have actually been spending money on purchasing things for
the house. Which previously, everything came from garage sales.”


Many of the Lyon’s neighbors have sold their development rights as well. For ten
years, the township government has raised money to buy those rights with an additional
property tax. Almost no other community in the Midwest has a program like this. But,
if approved by voters, five more townships in this area might also start programs after
the November elections. Each township is separately asking voters to approve a property tax.


The American Farmland Trust has helped the townships design the program. The group is
excited because this would provide an example of local governments joining together to
protect farmland. Farmland Trust’s President Ralph Grossie flew in for a campaign event.
In a speech, Grossie told a crowd of about 100 people there’s a disconnect between farmers
and their communities. He says the community benefits from the farms while the farmers
struggle to make ends meet.


“We believe there is a middle ground here, there is a way to strike a deal between those
who manage our landscape – private farmers and ranchers, landowners – and those who
appreciate and benefit from that well-managed landscape. If you think about it, that’s
the heart of the property rights debate. Almost all those conflicts over property rights
are really about who pays for achieving a public goal on private land.”


Grossie says paying farmers with public money is the best option if a community wants to
keep farms. Otherwise, he says government forces farmers to pay when they give up profitable
uses of their land because of zoning laws. But a few in this crowd weren’t buying.


Some are opposed to more taxes on their homes or businesses so the township government can
write big checks to farmers. Others question if younger generations even want to farm.


(sound of noise from crowd)


And some are just plain suspicious of government. Roger Booth is talking to another
opponent of the propposal after the speech. Booth is explaining that when the right
to develop a piece of land is purchased, it’s gone forever. But he points out there
is one exception.


“Eminent domain. And who’s going to decide eminent domain has the right to take it? The
people in power of government at the time. Not today. Thirty years from now.”


Government also has an image problem because prominent local farmers often sit on the
town boards. It’s hard not to notice they could be the ones cashing in on the public treasury.
Critics also point out these programs tax farms to save farmland. And they say buying the
deveolopment rights does nothing to improve the business of farming. Supporters admit this
doesn’t guarantee future success for farms. But they say at least it gives the farmers a
chance to keep farming instead of selling to developers.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links

Vice Presidential Profile: John Edwards

  • Many environmental groups say that Edwards is doing a great job of supporting environmental issues, but some are arguing that his voting record says otherwise. (Photo by Dave Scull, courtesy of johnkerry.com)

With concerns about the economy, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, politicians have not spent a lot of time on topics such as the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that the candidate with the shortest record of public service is the candidate who talks the most about the environment on the campaign trail. Here’s a look at Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards:

Transcript

With concerns about the economy, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, politicians have not
spent a lot of time on topics such as the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the
presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports that the candidate with the shortest record of public service is the candidate who talks
the most about the environment on the campaign trail. Heres’a look at Democratic vice presidential
candidate John Edwards:


Senator Edwards thinks the Bush campaign is vulnerable on environmental issues. When asked about
his positions on the environment, he often begins by talking about the things he feels are at risk
under Bush administration.


“Over and over and over, whether it has to do with protecting our air, protecting our water,
whether we’re going to become energy independent in this country, protecting our natural
resources, making sure that we protect our lands, our national forests – all these issues
that are so important – making sure we don’t drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, all these
things are important because we have a responsibility to our children and our grandchildren
to leave this planet better than the way we found it. And that’s what we’ll do when John Kerry’s
our President.”


Although John Kerry has not spent a lot of time talking about the environment himself, Senator
Edwards knows that over 20 years in the U.S. Senate Kerry has a lifetime approval rating from the
League of Conservation Voters of 92 percent. The average Democrat has an approval rating of 70
percent… the average Republican an approval rating of 13 percent.”


Betsey Loyless is the League of Conservation Voters vice president of policy. She says
Edwards’ own record on the environment is not nearly as extensive.


“Senator Edwards has a short record on the environment because he’s been in the Senate only
one term, but his record has been, I think, has been quite good for a one-term senator. And,
he has been a leader on clean air issues. This administration, the Bush administration, had
pushed to weaken Clean Air Act standards as they apply to these old grandfathered power plants
that are the biggest of polluters. Senator Edwards led the charge to tell the Bush administration
to stop that policy on behalf of power plant operators and utilities.”


Senator Edwards did not get that job done. The Bush policy to allow power plants to make
improvements without updating pollution control equipment was put into place.


John Edwards talks about that losing battle while he’s on the campaign trail. He says he –
at least – wanted studies to see if the experts thought the changes in the regulations on the
old coal-fired power plants would affect human health.


“I mean, the laws had been there for 25 years. Can’t we take six months to figure out if you
change them what it’s going to do to people? And they refused to do it. Here’s why: they know
the answer. They know exactly. They were for it because the big energy companies are for it.
It’s just no more complicated than that. And so, that’s one example of the fight.”


Senator Edwards’ fight hasn’t been going on very long. Before his election to the U.S. Senate,
he held no legislative seat.


Jack Betts is an editorial writer and columnist for the Charlotte Observer. He’s followed
Edwards’ political career for the last few years. Betts says the environmental groups in
Edwards’ home state of North Carolina seem to approve of the senator’s positions.


“John Edwards in his Senate campaign six years ago was identified as the more likely
to be a strong advocate for the environment. And I think that helped him to election then.
And I don’t think he’s done anything to reverse those expectations about how he would stand
on the environment in the future.”


Senator Edwards’ critics say really it’s hard to say how he’d stand on any issue. They point to
his voting record for the last couple of years, noting that he was often absent. He’s missed
votes while on the road campaigning to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee… and now
campaigning as vice presidential candidate. But the environmental groups seem confident
that as vice president, John Edwards would fully support what they would expect to be a
pro-environment Kerry administration.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links