Author Archive

Bear Protectors File Legal Brief Seeking Injunction To Stop Trophy Bear Hunt Slaughter

December 3rd, 2022 No comments

Brief Exposes DEP Sham Declaration of “Imminent Peril” To Public Safety

DEP Bear Management Plan Based On Seriously Flawed Data, Projections And Science

Court Likely To Grant temporary Injunction To Stop Hunt

Black bear along High Point Trail

Black bear along High Point Trail

After winning a court order temporarily stopping the Murphy administration’s bear hunt, a group of black bear protectors filed legal briefs last night to the Appellate Division seeking an injunction to stop the Murphy DEP proposed bear hunt, which was scheduled to begin on Monday.

The appellants are the Animal Protection League of NJ, Humane Society of the United States, Friends of Animals, Angela Metler, and Doreen Frega.

They are challenging the NJ Fish and Game Council, DEP, and Gov. Murphy’s emergency rulemaking that seeks to authorize a black bear hunt.

The attorney is Dante DiPirro, of Hopewell, NJ. I worked with Dante in the McGreevey DEP, where I was a policy advisor to and he served as legal Counsel to Commissioner Brad Campbell. Dante later served as Ex. Director of the Highlands Council.

The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the hunt until the legal case can be heard by the Courts.

The bear protectors make compelling arguments that there is no “imminent peril” to public safety; that the FGC and DEP manufactured a fake “imminent peril”; that they based that fake finding on seriously flawed bear population data, population projections, and bear reproductive and behavioral science; and that they failed to consider and implement non-lethal management methods.

In doing all that, the FGC and DEP violated Constitutionally guaranteed “due process” rights of the public to participate in government decisions, as well as the NJ statutory requirement to demonstrate an “imminent peril” to public safety to justify emergency rules.

I outlined these issues in two prior posts, see:

At this stage of the legal process, the arguments before the Court are limited to whether the appellants have met their burden to justify a temporary injunction.

I am not a lawyer, but in reading the powerfully written brief, it seems very obvious that the appellants have met their burden and I therefore predict that the Court will grant the temporary injunction, likely on Tuesday. That injunction likely will include or be followed by a very aggressive schedule to file briefs and litigate the case.

The full legal and scientific merits are not yet under consideration, but the appellants legal brief outlines the nature of those issues that would come before the court should the injunction be issued and the case heard.

It is an incredibly powerful brief, particularly given the expedited process and severely limited time allowed to file what amounts to an emergency a brief that summarized a huge literature on administrative law and bear science.

If I could have added one thing, I would have put more meat on the bones of the judicial standard of review. The Council and DEP deserve no judicial deference. The judges can rely on that and be on solid legal ground, without having to fear being attacked as judicial activists and inappropriately over-ruling the science and policy makers.

So, I’d like to highlight a few devastating points made in the powerful brief.

I) Constitutional Due Process Violation

Under the US and NJ Constitutions, executive branch  government agencies, because they are not legislators and elected officials, must provide people adequate public notice and opportunity for the public to participate in regulatory decisions that have the force and effect of law.

By invoking “emergency rules”, which become effective upon publication, the FGC and DEP did not do that:

The Council invoked emergency rulemaking less than three weeks before the intended start date of the hunt– giving no time for public comment or consideration of public feedback and no chance for Appellants to challenge the rule through ordinary motion practice — even though the agency has intended to re- authorize black bear hunting in the state for well over a year, and its own records showed it could have commenced ordinary rulemaking in January 2022 or earlier but did not.

The FGC and DEP violated due process protections and they did so intentionally and in bad faith to avoid public scrutiny and criticism.

II)  Administrative Procedure Act Violation – No “Imminent Peril”

NJ’s Administrative Procedure Act mandates that the public be provided opportunity to participate in any rulemaking by government agencies.

There is a very limited and narrow exception for emergency rules, but the law places a heavy burden on government to prove that an “imminent peril” to public healthy, safety or welfare exists.

The FGC and DEP did not come close to meeting that legal burden – there is no emergency (no “imminent peril”) and the DEP clearly attempted to manufacture one:

This rushed process was undertaken in contravention of the notice and comment requirements of the New Jersey Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), unlawfully invoking extraordinary emergency powers on the false premise that the public is currently in “imminent peril, even though the Council has had ample time to propose such a measure through ordinary rulemaking procedures. […]

The APA allows emergency rulemaking without prior notice and comment only in the extraordinary case when “an agency finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires adoption of a rule upon fewer than 30 days’ notice.” N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(c). The Council claimed such peril exists for seven reasons (Pa 109-10), none of which are supported by evidence supporting the existence of “imminent peril.” […]

The Council’s first two claims – (1) that the state’s black bear population will explode by about 33 percent within the next two years and (2) thereby threaten public safety – are both flawed. First, they are unsupported by scientific evidence. As Dr. Sean Murphy, an expert in black bear population dynamics, explains, the Council’s “highly improbable” population growth projection “ does not meet the criteria for sound, evidentiary science that is useful for science-based management  of wildlife.” (Pa590 ¶¶ 16, 17). Moreover, as black bear expert Dr. Stephen Stringham notes, the number of black bears in a population is not what drives human-bear conflicts: food sources do. (Pa560a ¶10;Pa443). Even if the Council’s projection were plausible, a situation that may occur two years in the future does not “require” the “adoption of a [n emergency] rule upon fewer than 30 days’ notice.” N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(c). If the Council genuinely believes such a population explosion will take place, it has ample time over the next two years to promulgate a rule addressing that situation in compliance with the APA.

The agency’s third claim, that nuisance reports of black bears have increased by 237% since last year, is also uncompelling. The number of overall reports does not provide any meaningful information about the danger posed by black bears to the public. These reports include non-threatening interactions with bears, and even sightings of deceased bears. In fact, the “overwhelming majority” of the incidents reported to the DEP “do not constitute a threat to public safety.” (Pa593 ¶ 24).

The Council’s fourth claim, that the state has “invest[ed] significantly in non-lethal management” practices that have not worked, is patently false. This apparently refers to the publication of several 15-second public service announcements in 2022 and the launch in August 2022 of a new website with “bear facts” and “safety tips.” (Pa13; Pa41). Non-lethal management of wildlife, though, requires actual involvement in the community—not simply publishing information online. Advocates, including Appellants, have urged the state for years to implement better practices, including adoption of a comprehensive non-lethal management plan; a ban on the feeding of bears; and distribution of bear-resistant trash cans. (Pa426 ¶ 4; Pa428-29 ¶ 11). The state has repeatedly refused to introduce such common-sense solutions. […]

The Council has known of the conditions it now calls on to support its finding of an “emergency”—an increase in the number human-bear incidents reported to the DEP—for at least eleven months. The increase in bear complaints is not an emergency and the Council recognizes that many factors contribute to complaints going up and down, including educational efforts and changes in public tolerance.

Courts rarely tolerate this kind of procedural abuse by regulatory agencies. Nor should they.

III) Seriously Flawed Data, Population Projection Methods, and Science

I had read summaries but had not read in detail the full DEP Comprehensive Black Bear Management Plan (CBBMP), so I was not aware of just had flawed that plan is.

The appellants rely on statements from two PhD bear experts to absolutely destroy DEP’s false premises and sham data, population estimates, population projections and other bear science.

The appellants make it clear at the outset what this hunt is really all about:

The agency’s own management plan reveals that the authorization of this hunt was never about wildlife management, nor is it about protecting the public. It is a recreational hunt authorized for the benefit of a small percentage of the state’s population who enjoy killing bears. The CBBMP, which Respondents adopted on an emergency basis, repeatedly refers to “recreation.”


The appellants expose a fatal flaw in DEP’s logic:

The CBBMP claims that hunting is “safe” (Pa58) but bears present a “risk,” when 631 people have been shot – 34 fatally – in hunting accidents in New Jersey in the past 50 years, while only one person has ever been killed by a bear during the state’s entire recorded history.

By ignoring the safety risks of hunting and claiming that bears present an imminent peril, Respondents are creating a true imminent peril from hunting accidents. It makes no sense to say that something that has killed 34 people in 50 years is “safe”  while something that has killed one person in 350 years is a “life-threatening” imminent peril


The brief then goes on to expose and demolish the seriously flawed data, population estimates, and population projections DEP relied on:

As explained in the attached certifications of black bear experts Sean Murphy, PhD, (Pa584), and Stephen F. Stringham, PhD, (Pa558), the Council approved the emergency hunt despite having no reliable information about the actual size of the state’s bear population. (Pa587-90 ¶¶ 9-15; Pa560 ¶ 8). The state applies a modified version of the “Lincoln-Petersen estimator” to approximate the total bear population, but this methodology is prone to causing “severe over- estimation of bear population sizes” and is “so deeply flawed that the agency has no scientifically defensible approximation of how many black bears may actually reside in New Jersey.” (Pa587-90 ¶¶ 10-11, 15). As Dr. Murphy illustrates, the state’s methodology generates erroneous and “illogical” results, such as the estimated bear population increasing when hunters kill more bears. (Pa588-89 ¶¶ 12-13). The state’s methodology also assumes that tagged bears are randomly distributed throughout the hunted population. (Pa561 ¶ 11; Pa590 ¶ 14). But this fundamental assumption is untrue. 

The state’s population estimates “are so deeply flawed” that the Council approved the emergency hunt despite having “no scientifically defensible approximation of how many black bears may actually reside in New Jersey.” (Pa590 ¶15). Proceeding with the hunt in the face of that uncertainty risks killing a sufficiently high percentage of the total bear population to cause “serious and long- lasting harm to the population.” (Pa591 ¶19). As the number of bears harvested rises relative to the actual population size—which is unknown to the Council— over-harvest sufficient to cause population decline is likely. (Pa560 ¶ 8). Because the state lacks the data and monitoring protocols to timely detect and respond to such a decline, it could continue undetected for years, further compounding the likelihood and magnitude of population-level harm. (Pa592-93 ¶ 23; Pa560 ¶¶ 8, 9). New Jersey’s bears will be especially vulnerable to overharvest this year: drought conditions have reduced the availability of acorns and other staple foods, likely leading to a low reproductive year. (Pa562-63 ¶ 12; Pa296; Pa591 ¶ 18).

Approving any bear hunt without accurate population data would be irresponsible and scientifically unsupportable. Here, the Council has gone even further and established a hunt that sets no absolute limit on the number of bears that may be killed during the season. The emergency rule does not specify a maximum number of bears that may be killed during the hunt. Rather, the only threshold that will trigger a closure of the hunt is if 30% of tagged bears are killed.

In practice, this will allow hunters to kill an unlimited number of bears – potentially, and even likely, exceeding 30% of the total population – so long as the number of tagged bears killed remains below the threshold. (Pa592 ¶ 20). Because hunting is more likely to occur where tagged bears are less common, untagged bears will be killed at a higher rate than tagged bears, meaning substantially more than 30% of the total population may be killed even if the threshold is not met. (Pa562 ¶ 11). Hunters may even intentionally exploit the rule by deliberately avoiding killing tagged bears in order to extend the season and allow more bears to be killed. (Pa591 ¶ 14; Pa430 ¶ 17).

Furthermore, there is no population number that will cause the hunt to be canceled under the emergency CBBMP. No matter how many bears there are in the state, the CBBMP will continue to authorize two bear seasons every year, which is further indication that the hunt is recreational and has nothing to do with imminent peril or the number of bears.

This dangerous combination of faulty population data and unlimited harvest generates an unacceptable risk that the hunt will cause population-level harm to the state’s bear population. The Council cannot mitigate this risk because it lacks “sufficient data to determine how many bears can be sustainably harvested from the population.” (Pa592 ¶ 22). The level of annual human-caused mortality – including hunting mortality – that a black bear population can sustain depends on  the population growth rate. (Pa592 ¶ 21; Pa560 ¶ 8). Studies have found that black bear populations can only sustain a 4 to 10 percent rate of human-caused mortality; in specific areas this has been found to be as high as 18 percent or as low as 1 to 2 percent. (Pa592 ¶ 21). Here, the state lacks sufficient data to determine the population growth rate, and therefore the level of human-caused mortality the population can sustain. (Pa592 ¶ 22; Pa560 ¶¶ 8-9). The growth rate estimates described in the CBBMP, (Pa85), are unreliable because they are based an inadequate sample size from which to derive an accurate growth rate, (Pa592 ¶ 22), and the estimates they produce do not align with high-quality research conducted elsewhere, (Pa560 ¶ 9). Without this crucial data, the Council cannot ensure that the emergency hunt will not cause population-level harm. (Pa592 ¶ 22; Pa560 ¶¶ 8- 9). Research on other bear populations (including in Pennsylvania, where “black bears have the highest known rates of reproduction”) has found that mortality far below the level that will soon be inflicted by the hunt the would be unstainable, (sic) indicating that the hunt is “extremely risky” and New Jersey’s bears will suffer population-level harm if it is not enjoined.

We’ll keep you posted – I’m hopeful and predicting the the Courts will grant the preliminary injunction!

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

EPA’s Granting Petition To Upgrade Delaware River Water Quality Standards Is Not The Good News It’s Portrayed to Be

December 2nd, 2022 Comments off

EPA Made No Commitment To a Specific Numeric Standard

EPA Inserted A Poison Pill In A Footnote

NJ DEP Variance Loophole Lets NJ Polluters Off The Hook & Undermines Benefits

Columbia River sturgeon

Columbia River white sturgeon

The new requirements to incorporate WQS variance provisions will allow the Department to adopt temporary in-stream criteria or effluent conditions that will provide significant economic relief to permittees facing currently unattainable SWQS.  ~~~~ NJ DEP “variance” @page 51)

NJ Spotlight reports today that EPA granted a petition by environmental groups to upgrade water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in the Delaware River to protect endangered sturgeon, see:

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday it will raise a key water-quality standard for an urban stretch of the Delaware River Estuary between Trenton and Wilmington, DE, giving a big — and unexpected — victory to environmental groups that had long-sought the increase.   

Environmentalists should not be spiking the ball quite yet. The EPA decision is not the “big win” they think it is.

The fine print once again shows how polluters and their friendly regulators are playing the long game, are two steps ahead of, and have once again outflanked the environmental groups.

The cliff notes version of the regulatory story (i.e. the long game) is that once the final EPA and/or DRBC water quality standard is actually adopted, it is implemented in State pollution discharge permit programs, not by EPA or DRBC.

The NJ DEP has already laid the regulatory foundation of that long game in a July 5, 2022 proposal of a “variance” from water quality standards. We drilled down and explained that in these posts:

The DEP makes it very clear that a variance is designed to avoid the costs of compliance with water quality standards:

A permittee requesting a WQS variance must justify and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that the SWQS …. would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact, as proposed at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.16(b)4. (proposal @ p. 27)

The Department anticipates that the WQS variance will be useful to address implementation challenges for situations when the water quality criterion for a substance or the designated use of a waterbody/waterbody segment(s) cannot be attained due to the lack of feasible treatment technologies, lack of analytical methods to measure the substance to the criterion thresholds, or the potential to cause widespread social and economic impact, if implemented. (proposal @ p.32)

The new requirements to incorporate WQS variance provisions will allow the Department to adopt temporary in-stream criteria or effluent conditions that will provide significant economic relief to permittees facing currently unattainable SWQS,(@page 51)

The EPA inserted a poison pill in their approval document that specifically links the EPA water quality standard to NJ DEP and other state water pollution control permit programs (NPDES) and DEP’s variance loophole.

The EPA gives this “variance” game away, as usual, in the very fine print of footnote #52 on page 10 of their approval document. Here is the poison pill (emphasis mine):

52 DRBC has not fully evaluated how that cost burden may be distributed across ratepayers, especially in underserved and overburdened communities. However, DRBC has provided a partial list of potential cost mitigation options, such as federal, state, and local assistance programs that, if awarded, adopted, or implemented, may help offset costs for low-income households or help utilities finance costs (see DRBC 2022: Social and Economic Factors Affecting the Attainment of Aquatic Life Uses in the Delaware River Estuary).

See footnote #26 for that document, curiously which is described as a “draft”:

26 Delaware River Basin Commission. 2022. Social and Economic Factors Affecting the Attainment of Aquatic Life Uses in the Delaware River Estuary. September 2022 Draft.

The DRBC  Social and Economic Factors document plays right into the NJ DEP variance loophole via the economic impacts analysis – which includes a “household affordability score” – to analyze economic costs that could trigger the DEP variance loophole standard, i.e.:

“result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact”

The DRBC explains the objectives of this study – which explicitly are the same as NJ DEP’s variance:

Included in the list of studies to be completed is an evaluation of the social and economic factors affecting the attainment of uses, as described in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) water quality standards regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(g)(1)-(6). That regulation describes the factors that a state may consider in developing a use attainability analysis, including if meeting a use would cause substantial and widespread economic and social impact. While a use attainability analysis is typically performed by a state seeking to remove a use, an action not considered by Resolution No. 2017-4, it is apparent that the Commissioners intended for DRBC to utilize that framework in evaluating the social and economic impact of new proposed uses and associated effluent limits. The goal of this evaluation is to provide information on the social and economic impact of possible alternative uses for consideration and deliberation in rulemaking.

DRBC’s social and economic impact analysis is based on EPA Guidance, so the other States would be seeking to exploit the same loophole as NJ’s variance:

Two primary guidance documents were utilized to implement the evaluation of social and economic factors affecting the attainment of uses. These were:

  • EPA. Proposed 2022 Clean Water Act Financial Capability Assessment Guidance. February 2022. 2022.pdf
  • EPA. 2021 Financial Capability Assessment Guidance (800B21001). January 2021. _january_13_2021_final_prepub.pdf.

Here are the results, which suggest that there may be “substantial and widespread economic and social impact” that triggers the NJ DEP variance standard as well as US EPA’s variance relief standard  – note that the NJ facilities are Trenton, Camden, Gloucester, Hamilton make up a significant fraction of the total pollution discharge to the Delaware River:

Screen Shot 2022-12-02 at 10.32.07 AM

Finally, I m must note that the environmental group petition demanded that EPA adopt a minimum numeric dissolved oxygen standard of 6.3 mg/L:

To protect the “propagation” use, the EPA must also upgrade the dissolved oxygen (“D.O.”) criteria for the subject zones to at least 6.3 mg/L.

However, the EPA’ approval document does not make a commitment to that minimum 6.3 mg/L standard. EPA merely references a range of values identified in research. Here’s how EPA evaded support for a specific numeric standard:

For example, experimental tests on juvenile Atlantic sturgeon showed instantaneous growth declined 50% when dissolved oxygen decreased from 70% to 40% saturation at 20°C, which is equal to dissolved oxygen concentrations of 6.35 to 3.62 mg/L, respectively.34 At summer temperatures for the Delaware River Estuary (i.e., 28°C), juvenile Atlantic sturgeon did not grow when dissolved oxygen concentrations were at the currently applicable summer criterion of 3.5 mg/L. 35

Once again, EPA regulators have played the environmental groups.

EPA and/or DRBC may set a weaker standard than the minimum 6.3 mg/L, especially when cost considerations are injected into the political pushback from the polluters.

Finally, EPA found that 12 months was a realistic timeframe for DRBC to propose a water quality standard (which typically take a year more for adoption). But I could find no date certain EPA committed to to propose or adopt any federal EPA water quality standard.

Based on EPA’s regulatory track record, I strongly doubt that EPA will propose, no less adopt, a water quality standard in 12 months.

After EPA or DRBC adoption of that water quality standard, the States then implement the standards in their pollution discharge permit programs.

Typically, when a water quality standard is updated, DEP phases it in during renewal of POTW discharge permits (NJPDES). DEP does not “call” all permits along a stretch of river and updated them all at once. Depending on the timing of permit renewals, implementation of any new EPA or DRBC water quality standard in permits could take another 5-7 years.

Of course, the polluters will likely challenge those State discharge permits, both administratively and judicially, particularly to exploit NJ DEP’s variance loophole, based on “substantial and widespread economic and social impact”.

Those legal challenges will add several years more.

So, any actual improvement in Delaware River water quality is highly uncertain and a long way off.

I don’t expect news reporters to understand this regulatory complexity, but Maya van Rossum at Riverkeeper is an attorney and she surely does. Shame on her for exaggerating the benefits and not calling out DEP on their variance loophole and EPA for their games.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Pinelands Preservation Alliance’s Pitiful Defense Of DEP’s Logging Plan

November 29th, 2022 No comments

Ex. Director Carleton Montgomery Directs Junior Staffer To Walk The Plank

PPA Puff Piece Provides Pitiful Platitudes

Let me first state right up front that Carleton Montgomery is a despicable and dishonorable coward. And a gaslighting liar. And possibly a plagiarist as well (see #8 below).

What a smug bastard!

What a smug bastard!

Instead of publicly defending the controversial DEP logging plan that he supported for two years in behind closed doors meetings consumed with making quiet compromises with DEP, he forced his most junior staffer to write a blog post defending the DEP plan.

And this blog post was written AFTER the Commission approved the plan and the critics, like myself, first became aware of the project and started to protest and seek a veto by Gov. Murphy.

Carleton directed a young woman, Heidi Yeh, Policy Director, who joined PPA just this year, who has no forestry science or land use or regulatory expertise or experience, and who is likely distracted by writing her PhD dissertation at Rutgers on unrelated Marine and Coastal Science issues, to post on PPA’s blog, this pitiful capitulation, which is riddled with fact errors, assumptions, unsubstantiated premises, lack of relevant information, and flawed science:

Here is my first round of questions and comments to the author of that piece – criticism I feel terrible in having to write to her, when Carleton bears responsibility and should be the target of this criticism. (I apologize for the screwed up font, which I can’t seem to fix):

(and I thought that candidates for the PhD degree in science had been taught to honor the scientific method, which includes, among other things, weighing all available credible evidence in reaching conclusions and striving to eliminate bias. The informal blog format and engagement in a “policy” domain does not alleviate a scientist of that burden of basic reasoning and thinking skills.)

Hi – I’ve been writing quite a bit on the DEP plan and a mutual friend just sent me your blog post, so I’d like to ask you a few questions, OK?

I’ll do this in 2 steps: first, a few questions about your awareness of relevant available information and then some questions on the substance (in a second email).

By way of introduction, I’m a retired DEP policy planner (13 years), policy Director of NJ Sierra Chapter (7 years) and Director of NJ Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) (10 years).

I see you’re in coastal science at Rutgers, so you can say hello and ask Professor Mike Kennish about me if necessary. I worked with him on some of his Barnegat Bay work. I also note your interest in [the role of the scientist in] policy, so you might want to check out a piece I wrote about that topic and the stance of certain scientists at Rutgers and Princeton, see:

Jim Hansen’s Talk at Princeton Provides A Sharp Contrast to Rutgers Climate Conference On Role Of Scientist

You wrote this, which is obviously targeted at my work, so I think I deserve the courtesy of a reply:

“Unfortunately, there has been some hyperbole in criticisms raised for the first time after the Commission approved the plan”

My criticisms are fact based and grounded in science and law and reflect 35 years of professional experience and graduate school level training (Cornell). They are not “hyperbole”. In terms of coming “after” the approval, as described below, I was affirmatively prevented from reviewing documents and timely submitting comments. Your comments are false and personally offensive. [That “after the fact” BS is amazing criticism, in light of the fact that PPA and NJCF kept this DEP plan quiet and off the public radar for 2 years.]

1. Your bio notes you joined PPA in 2022 – were you involved in PPA’s 2 year long review of the plan, which you note began in 2020? If not, who was? How did you review that process to gain sufficient knowledge to vouch for it in your own words?

Do you have training or experience in forestry, or DEP and CMP regulations?

2. You note that:

“Pinelands Preservation Alliance and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation were the only members of the public who provided substantive comments to DEP and the Pinelands Commission during the development and review of this plan.

Were you aware that I filed a petition for rulemaking to the DEP and Pinelands Commission on these specific issues of forest management, wildfire and land use earlier this year, and that petition was denied and gathered no support from PPA and NJCF?

Were you aware that I learned of this project by reading the Commission’s July Monthly Management Report and immediately filed an OPRA public records request on August 9 for the DEP plan and related Commission review documents? Are you aware that the Pinelands Commission staff denied that request on the basis that they had “no responsive records”?

Were you aware that I then attempted to file public comments on the DEP plan, in the absence of any documents, which were rejected by staff because they were submitted after the close of the public comment period?

The fact that there was no public participation other than PPA and NJCF is because there was no public knowledge of the plan and DEP and the Commission actively suppressed information.

So, why were no other members of the public given a heads up and opportunity to participate in this informal review process by PPA and NJCF?

Are you aware that when a controversial project comes along, NJ environmental groups typically issue “action alerts” to the public and their members to allow participation (or they issue press releases, or blog posts).

Did PPA do ANY of that? For the 2 YEARS they negotiated with DEP?

3. Are you familiar with the DEP land use, water quality, and forestry regulations and Pinelands CMP provisions that apply to this project (or provide loopholes, exemptions, voluntary standards, etc)? Do you have regulatory training and experience?

Are you aware that Stacey Roth, Pinelands Counsel, has taken the legal position that the Pinelands CMP does not apply to greenhouse gas emissions or climate change impacts and therefore are not regulated under the CMP?

The same loopholes – and more – apply to DEP regulations (more on that in next post, especially ad your blog post praises specific regulatory aspects).

4. Did you personally review the DEP plan and the Pinelands Commission’s approval document (w/conditions)?

5. You write:

“Our fundamental criteria for evaluating any forest management proposal on public land are whether it has a legitimate justification,

Are you aware of Pinelands Commissioner Wallner’s analysis and comments on the plan – he’s a retired US Forest Service wildfire expert?

Wallner stated on the public record that he reviewed the maps and found little to no people or property at risk and therefore found no justification for the project. He also said DEP provided no wildfire justification for the project in the Plan. He also said DEP conducted no alternatives analysis (like required under NEPA) or consideration of a “no action” alternative. (NJ does not have a State NEPA law, so there is no EIS required).

Wallner’s analysis directly contradicts the headline, assertions, and conclusions of your blog post. His analysis is not mentioned in your blog post. Are you comfortable with that as a scientist?

6. Are you aware of Pinelands Commissioner Lohbauer’s analysis – both orally on the public record and in writing after to explain his no vote?

Again, Lohbauer’s findings and conclusions directly contradict your analysis, yet are not even mentioned in it.

Again, are you comfortable with that as a scientist? 

You feel confident to directly contradict a retired USFS wildfire expert and a longstanding leading Pinelands Commissioner? And without even mentioning their criticism? That arrogant approach contradicts the conclusion of your blog post:

“PPA supports plans that take into account all aspects of Pinelands health and diversity, and welcomes comments based upon science and experience about how best to protect this unique ecosystem.”

7. You state (with no supporting citations)

“Modern forestry science advocates that this ladder be cut off to prevent more destructive forms of fire.”

Where did you get that? From DEP forestry people?

Have you reviewed Chad Hansen’s (PhD, forest ecology) work that was presented to the Pinelands Commission in March 2021 by Leslie Sauer (PhD forest ecologist)?

Are Chad and Leslie somehow ancient and scientifically misguided?

Again, no mention of that critically relevant and important scientific work.

8. You used two phrases that caught my eye:

“Critics that focus only on the number of trees, but not their size and type, are quite literally missing the forest for the trees. The resulting forest will be a healthy native Pine Barrens habitat.”

Curious, both those phrases were attributed to Carleton Montgomery in the Associated Press story.

Did you write those words? If so, did Carleton plagiarize them? Or did Carleton edit them into your piece.

Regardless, your claim are false. My criticism – and that of all others I am aware of – did not “focus only on the number of trees”.

[And what are your definitions, criteria, and standards that support this conclusion that the DEP logging will result in a “healthy native Pine Barrens habitat.”

My next inquiry will focus on fact errors in your post and other substance.

appreciate a timely and thoughtful reply.

Bill Wolfe

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Giving Tuesday: Don’t Give NJ’s “Filthy 14″ A Dime Until They Give Back The $3.4 Million In Covid Money They Didn’t Deserve And Stop Taking Corporate Money And Serving Corporate Interests

November 28th, 2022 No comments

Time To Get Corporate Money Out Of The Environmental Community

Time To Get Back To Earth Day Activist Roots

Democracy Is Coming to The Green Mafia

Democracy is coming, to the USA. ~~~ Leonard Cohen (listen)

The time has come to say fair’s fair

To pay the rent, to pay our share

The time has come, a fact’s a fact

It belongs to them, let’s give it back. ~~~ Midnight Oil (listen)

I got my third  (update: fourth!) (update fifth!) (sixth! . This one amazingly titled “It”s about giving back“) (seventh! “just hours left“) (eighth!” “last chance”) (ninth! “final hours“) “Giving Tuesday” fundraising solicitation in the last week from NJ Audubon Society (NJAS).  These are some twisted values, when a fundraiser is described as an “incredibly powerful movement”. The Current CEO, a former Exxon Mobil biostitute, fits right into that culture!

Screen Shot 2022-11-28 at 7.43.49 AM

As we’ve shown, NJAS is the worst of NJ’s “Filthy 14″ and have done the most damage in aggressively pursuing corporate money and advancing Neoliberal policies and corporate interests through “Corporate Stewardship” slogans, “partnerships”, greenwashing, and corrupt political self dealing. Just take another look at what they’ve done – in case you missed the original posts:

Since then, we’ve learned that in addition to logging Highlands forests, NJAS also is involved in logging Pinelands forests (and taking government money for it).

As far as I know, NJAS still has not given back the dirty Trump money, see:

My goodness, the rot has gotten so bad that Carleton Montgomery of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and Emile DeVito of NJ Conservation Foundation flat out lied to their members and fellow conservationists about the impacts of the DEP logging plan they support (i.e. they claimed there would be  “no reduction in canopy cover”, et al.)

The Associated Press exposed that lie in a national story (but only attributed the lie to the DEP, not to PPA and NJCF who also made exactly the same false claim DEP did):

New Jersey says the cutting will center on the smallest snow-bent pitch pine trees, “and an intact canopy will be maintained across the site.”

The state’s application, however, envisions that canopy cover will be reduced from 68% to 43% on over 1,000 acres (405 hectares), with even larger decreases planned for smaller sections.

I fed AP reporter Wayne Parry those facts. It’s rare to see lies so effectively exposed by media.

It’s time to send NJAS and the rest of NJ’s Filthy 14 a message this Giving Tuesday:

  • Give back the COVID money you did not deserve;
  • No more fundraising driven issue campaigns;
  • No more corporate money;
  • No more “Corporate Stewardship Councils” and related corporate “partnerships”;
  • Stop misleading the public; and
  • Democratize your organizations and let members decide issue priorities, policy positions, and campaign strategies and tactics – not corporate money, elite Foundations, and incompetent and dishonest professional staff.

No more donations until you do all that.

No more donations until you formally pledge to stop taking corporate money.

No more donations until you get back to the politics of the original Earth Day grassroots activist roots.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

A (Benign) Monroe Doctrine Of Boondocking

November 27th, 2022 No comments


You, who are on the road, must have a code

that you can live by. ~~~ CSNY (listen)

Since the mid 19the Century, the US has asserted the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere to protect US national security and economic interests and serve as a pretext for Imperialism. It’s basically a huge “Keep Out – Private Property” sign, backed by the US military.

(Interestingly, one hundred and ten years after its inception, a German madman adopted his own version of the doctrine, calling it lebensraum. While the intellectual roots of Hitler’s twisted worldview were primarily grounded in German history and culture, it is not widely known that Hitler was aware of and adapted other US policies, including Jim Crow, eugenics, and aspects of FDR’s New Deal.)

Well, I’m not greedy and I don’t have the Pentagon to enforce it, but I have my own personal “Monroe Doctrine” that governs my daily life on BLM lands and National Forests.

The photo above is an egregious example of a violation of that doctrine.

While I live on public lands that are legally governed by federal laws and regulations, and my fellow nomads tend to be anarchists, that doesn’t mean that anything goes. We have higher standards and expectations.

The rules of the doctrine, while not formalized, are pretty simple: have some respect for your neighbors.

Respect means understanding and respecting the legitimate territorial and privacy needs of your neighbors.

Respect their desire to be left alone. Understand that some people are not interested in imposed social engagements and prefer solitude. That they would like to control if and when they interact with people and not have people imposed on them.

Respect his “space” – don’t roll up and settle inside a sensible zone of privacy.

There are plenty of places out there, like Quartzite, Arizona, where nomads gather in small communities. There are plenty of RV ghettos. Go there.

General areas of concern are sight lines, light pollution, noise/music/talking, smoke/fires, “space”, and view sheds.

Huge ostentatious $250,000 Class A RV’s and luxury tour buses and ORV’s inject orders of magnitude of nuisance, but I’m no fan of the Mercedes Sprinter Van – YouTube Channel – selfie crowd either.

Try to stay out of sight. I didn’t come to the desert to look at campers, RV’s and Sprinter Vans.

I prefer the mountains, and sunsets, and solitude, and silence, and clean air and vegetation and wildlife, and stars.

I don’t want to breath the smoke from your campfire. I hate your night lights and vehicle headlights and closing vehicle doors and barking dogs.

If you play music or party – and especially if you have a generator – stay at least a mile away. Sound and light travel far in the desert.

Bouy, my dog, has different criteria and standards. Generally, his are based on smell and noise – he has about a quarter of a mile security perimeter, where anything that enters and moves triggers barking and (peaceful, exploratory) engagement. If you have an Alpha male dog, stay even further away. Respect my dog’s needs too.

Most importantly, never insinuate yourself between me and a lovely view, especially a desert sunset over the mountains.

The guy in the photo above violated cardinal rules of the Monroe Doctrine for Boondockers.

He’s about 100 feet from me and the sun sets right over the mountains behind his rig. Disgraceful disrespect.

And that sucks.

Typically when this happens – and thankfully it rarely does – I head out and find another campsite ASAP.

But Word has it he leaves tomorrow. Let’s hope so.


Categories: Uncategorized Tags: