Sally Jewell, the nominee for the Secretary of Interior, was asked several questions during her confirmation hearing but the committee members also submitted about 200 written questions to her as well.
You can read her answers here
.
Sally Jewell, the nominee for the Secretary of Interior, was asked several questions during her confirmation hearing but the committee members also submitted about 200 written questions to her as well.
You can read her answers here.
Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is the interim Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project.
We do not accept unsolicited “guest” authors or advertising.
Comments
Boy that Murkowski is a piece of work… She’s a new and worse version of drill baby drill. Maybe it should be “shill, baby, shill” (as in for the NRA, the frackers, the oil companies, Haliburton, livestock operators, outfitters, hunters, trappers, whalers… is there anyone not in her pocket that hates the environment?
You got that right Oliver.
The questions say more about the senators than Jewell’s answers tell about her hand.
yes Leslie and about the crony Murkowski
I love this
“Questions from Senator Murkowski
47. When droughts occur they are always compared to droughts that occurred previously in terms of their severity, their costs, and their impacts to the nation’s resources.
What programs and activities are ongoing and what is Interior planning to do to help establish criteria to compare future droughts against past droughts, so that Congress can assess whether federal drought mitigation programs are successful or not?”
Murkowski is like darth vader in her war against nature. I guess once she fracks, drills, destroys her way across America’s wildernesses and wildlands then she has every right to wonder if the feds will help mitigate for the destruction caused by the droughts. Murkowski is a true scorched earth politician. The worst
Another Murkowski question of importance – Jewell’s answer too, and very relevant to much of the discussion on this forum:
Questions from Senator Murkowski
32. Wildlife professionals recognize the value of habitat improvement and population management projects for a variety of species, both game and non-game. However, many wilderness activists and other animal protection interests object strongly to wildlife population management arguing that it constitutes inappropriate human intercession into natural processes. This debate has been going on for over a century when Teddy Roosevelt crossed swords with John Muir over the same issues.
Do you support traditional wildlife management and where do you stand – with TR or Mr. Muir?
Response: I believe that both approaches have value. It would depend on a case-by-case analysis of the specifics of each area, and the purposes for which that area would be used. When confronted with these issues, I would consult with interested parties and scientists to achieve the most appropriate solution, under the specific circumstances.
______________
Missing from this answer is a specific reference to “affected states” which have a primary wildlife management role UNLESS superceded by federal statute. Maybe her advisors (these answers all have very careful language and indications they were written in some part by lawyers), were careful to keep away from hot button words and phrases.
I see there was no mention of cows or sheep, either.
Haven’t read all the questions by the variou senators, but a quick screening puts WY Senator Barrasso at the head of the most agenda driven questioners. It won’t be hard to guess how he will vote on her confirmation.
He also does not like National Parks Conservation Association, and Jewell’s service as a member of the Board. WY should be emBARRASSOed to have him as a Senator. Scary to think people like him are involved in running this country.
WM, I agree. I was appalled to read Barrasso’s questions. The NPCA is one of the most conservative enviro groups and its supporting our national parks. And Barasso, who represents a state that is dependent on that Park in terms of tourism business, is dead set against it. Clueless. Oh, and Barrasso was one of only 3 people on the committee that voted against Jewell’s nomination. I sent him an email telling him that in his live questioning to her, he was extremely rude and disrespectful which he was.
I have to finish reading, but I was glad to see Ms. Jewell stand up for ANWR.
All her (Jewell) were pretty much the same, in one context or another. I was disheartened by this –
153. Do you agree that the delisting of the wolf in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana was a success story for the Endangered Species Act?
Response: Yes, I believe that the delisting and the return of healthy populations of the wolf to the Northern Rocky Mountains is a success story, and one that I believe is a positive result of the cooperation of states, tribes, and many partners to bring about the recovery of this species.
Hmmmm…but there’s no accounting for what happens after a delisting, I suppose. All the hard work and cooperation has been virtually ruined.
Ida, there are a large number of people who believe the hard work and cooperation is a success and paid off, all three states have populations above what was set out as a goal.
Now we have wolves in WA, OR and time will tell how CA goes. There are more wolves in the lower 48 than there have been for close to 100 years. It will take time to tell if anything has been ruined, but right now there are wolf populations.
You’re right about that. But the requests for longer hunting seasons and worse methods of killing is cause for concern.
You got to be kidding me. What healthy populations? How can she support Wyoming’s policy of shoot on site in 85% of the state. You call that “the best available science”?
answer’s is what I meant to put down
All her answer’s were pretty much the same.
Jewell answers where to me somewhat neutral but leaning towards the status quo – as in this one:
Written Questions
Jewell Confirmation Hearing
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
March 7, 2013
155
Questions from Senator Barrasso
154. Do you agree that Wyoming’s delisting deserves the same legal protections
from judicial challenges that Idaho and Montana already have?
Response: I am told by the FWS that the successful recovery of the species is a reflection
of outstanding cooperative work among the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana,
tribes, many partners, and the federal government. I understand that the FWS has full
confidence that the Wyoming management plan is legally defensible and that the states’
plan will ensure the sustained recovery of the species.
that’s is bullshit- the states are killing them and are planning on continued killing.
thomas,
The “bullshit” part is that you apparently do not understand the FWS standard set forth for the NRM plan and delisting. Controlling numbers was always part of the plan as long as the standard – 300 wolves in the NRM DPS with genetic connectivity – nothing more is required of the states.
Sorry, I was a bit cryptic, conginuing “….with each state obligated only to 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs.”
Jewell was on safe ground with her answer. And, you do understand the objective is to get past the hearing to an affirmative vote without pissing off too many people who would vote against her.
But WM as we have been told, those are Bullshit numbers!
Question for Barrasso. Would you like us to return Yellowstone Park to you so that Wyoming can develop the geothermal resource that is obviously there?
Next comment from the committee members. You realize we have no money for upkeep of our parks, etc, but hey we want you to make sure we can get a large share of new money for new water projects, more grazing, more drilling, etc.