How can the successful wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone go up in smoke?

Is reintroducing the grizzly bear in Idaho a good idea?

Johanna answers: Yes. Existing grizzly habitat is already significantly degraded -- what with roads, oil and gas developments and other kinds of human activities. It is my understanding that even to sustain existing numbers more high-quality habitat needs to be "found." Idaho is blessed with such habitat, so the hope is that some grizzlies will move there.

Why is Yosemite going to be closed to automobile traffic?

Johanna answers: The National Park Service has just proposed (not decided) to close Yosemite to private automobile traffic in 2002. According to the Yosemite General Management Plan, automobile traffic is "the single greatest threat to enjoyment of the natural and scenic qualities of Yosemite." Its traffic problems are among the most severe in the entire National Park system, and during peak visitor times, the traffic jams in the park equal those in major American cities.

Can grazing, mining and logging practices on public lands be changed without harming the economy?

Johanna answers: Absolutely! Although many people, including many westerners, think of the West's economy as still dependent on the traditional extractive industries, it has already diversified dramatically. Take federal grazing as an example: its contribution to all jobs in the 11 western states is .06%. The contribution of federal grazing to all income in the region is even less -- .04%. Similarly, mining for gold, silver and other so-called hard rock minerals on federal lands accounts for 1 out of 2,500 jobs in the mining industry. The fact is, the economies of western states are not dependent on mining, grazing or logging on our federal lands, and implementation of long-overdue changes to protect the publicly-owned resources of these lands would not cause serious economic disruption.

I heard a company wants to mine in Yellowstone -- aren't parks protected?

Johanna answers: You are absolutely right: most of our National Parks -- unlike our National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and other public lands -- are protected from commercial uses (the exceptions include Great Basin National Park in Nevada and Channel Islands National Park off the coast of California, both of which have livestock grazing within their boundaries). Unfortunately, however, many of our parks, including Yellowstone, are at serious risk from activities that are taking place outside their borders. The mine you asked about is a perfect example of this problem.

That mine, called the New World Mine, would be located about two miles outside Yellowstone's northeast border, on National Forest land. If built, it would threaten the purity of water in the park as well as the survival of the endangered Yellowstone Cutthroat trout. The Clinton administration committed more than a year and a half ago to buying the property involved from the mining company, but Congress has not yet made the funds available.

Is Congress still attacking our public lands? I haven't heard anything lately.

Johanna answers: Yes, but they are taking a much quieter approach this time around. The current 105th Congress is attaching anti-environmental riders onto budget legislation just like the 104th did and is considering extremely harmful substantive bills. For example, Congress is now considering H.R. 858 which would allow increased logging and would circumvent existing environmental laws in several of California's National Forests. Also, attached to the Department of Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 2107, are numerous enviornmentally harmful riders. In particular, this bill contains language that would exchange millions of dollars worth of public timber for environmentally destructive logging roads. Lastly, the Senate has just introduced a bill that would give National Forests lands to the states -- a replay of efforts in the 104th Congress to get rid of the federal estate.