Improving ESA: The Klamath Case Study

Tuesday February 28, 2006

Improving ESA: The Klamath Case Study In At Least One Region, The ESA Process For Three Species Has Had A Devastating Impact On Hundreds Of Others Environmental special interests claim that the current form of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been successful, and they are lobbying Congress against making modifications to improve it. In a recent press release, the NRDC’s endangered species “expert” stated that the recovery of the bald eagle represented the “success of the Endangered Species Act,” going on to say: In addition to protecting individual species, we must fight attempts in Congress to weaken the Endangered Species Act. The law must remain strong because extinction is irreversible. If a species dies out, we don’t get a second chance. Fact: The ESA has been successful in recovering but 10 of nearly 1,300 species currently listed. In 2001, in an effort to help protect three endangered species, the act severely impacted more than 400 others by forcing Fish and Wildlife Service biologists to shut off water to nearly a quarter of a million acres of farmland in the Klamath Basin region of the Pacific Northwest. As Dr. Robert McLandress of the University of California (Davis) states: There are 433 species of wild life here. The Biological Opinion deals with three. The farms and wetlands supply the food for waterfowl that we are pledged to look after. There are 200 million waterfowl use days that waterfowl have to be fed here in the Klamath Basin. That’s about 70 million pounds of food...we couldn’t even cover half of that under the natural systems. The other half has to come out of the farms. Because irrigation was closed off to protect the endangered coho salmon in Klamath River and two species of sucker fish in Klamath Lake, areas such as Tule Lake in the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge became dry for the first time in recorded history, and the effects were devastating. Experts at Oregon State University (OSU) say “that 75 to 80 percent of the waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway pass through the Basin,” where likely the single largest concentration of waterfowl was ever counted in one day (5.8 million). They went on to say, “Lower Klamath NWR is a substantial producer of waterfowl and other water birds, but production in 2001 was expected to be essentially zero [because the water shutoff left no reproductive habitat].” The greatest injustice of all is the fact that the water shut-off has been deemed unnecessary – wetlands did not have to dry up, farmers’ livelihoods did not have to be put at stake, and the loss of wildlife did not have to occur. The National Academy of Sciences found no benefits of raising the lake levels for endangered fish, and stated that the water shut-off was not necessary to protect those three species.

In Case You Missed It…Investor’s Business Daily Science And Fiction

Wednesday February 22, 2006

In Case You Missed It… Investor’s Business Daily Issues & Insights Science And Fiction February 21, 2006 Climate Change: Environmentalists are ridiculing President Bush for meeting with novelist Michael Crichton and for being “in near-total agreement” with his skepticism of global warming. But Crichton isn’t just spinning tales. Fred Barnes’ new book, “Rebel in Chief,” recounts how Bush avidly read Crichton’s “State of Fear,” a best-selling novel about global warming hysteria, then met for an hour last year with Crichton at the behest of Karl Rove. The encounter was kept secret, according to Barnes, so as not to enrage environmentalists. “This shows the president is more interested in science fiction than science,” quipped Clear Air Watch’s Frank O’Donnell to The New York Times after hearing about the meeting. In fact, Crichton’s fiction over more than 35 years has been based on better research than a lot of today’s politicized, government-funded “scientists.” Armed with an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, Crichton is no hack. We saw this last fall, when he appeared before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “I come from medicine, where the gold standard is the randomized double-blind study, which has been the paradigm of medical research since the 1940s,” he told senators. “For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed.” Crichton recounted the debunking of University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann’s “hockey-stick graph” embraced in 2001 by the U.N., in which recent temperature increases seemed to be unprecedented for the last thousand years. Mann failed to record the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age of the 16th century. “But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann’s study,” Crichton pointed out. “They found grave errors in the work . . . calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in and a computer program that generated a hockey stick out of any data fed to it — even random data.” And Mann’s mistakes were caught not by fellow climate scientists, but by an economist and a mathematician. In a 2003 address to the California Institute of Technology, Crichton called the repeated declarations of a consensus existing among scientists about global warming disturbing — and, in the end, unscientific. … Michael Crichton may make his living writing popular fiction, but he’s shown wisdom and integrity regarding the facts that question global warming, facts unpopular with scientific researchers living off the government dime. That’s exactly the kind of critical perspective that makes for someone with whom a president should be keeping company. Click here for the full text of the editorial.

Science And Fiction

Keystone: ESA Can Be Improved

Tuesday February 21, 2006

Fact of the Day: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 Keystone: ESA Can Be Improved Monday’s New York Times editorial, “Soaring Eagles,” argued for “clarification and measured reform” of the current Endangered Species Act (ESA), citing the likely delisting of the Bald Eagle, despite the fact that it would be just the eleventh species to be removed from the list over the past three decades, as proof that the current framework of the law is yielding results – “great news for the 1973 Endangered Species Act.” A group of 23 experts with a combined wealth of experience and distinctly different perspectives brought together as part of the Keystone Center’s ESA Working Group on Habitat, however, believes we can do much better. In May 2005, a bipartisan group of six United States Senators, including Environment and Public Works Committee chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member James Jeffords (I-Vt.), Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), asked the Center to review the current ESA and provide recommendations to improve species protection. Fact: After 30 years of implementation, members of Congress in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle have reached the consensus that the current framework of the ESA is in need of improvement and modernization. To help achieve that end, the Keystone working group recently provided the following recommendations in its cover letter and executive summary responding to the bipartisan request: “The Keystone ESA Working Group on Habitat agrees that the present regulatory approach to habitat protection could be improved to better address the biological needs of species, increase transactional efficiency, and reduce the concerns of regulated parties. Although the group is not able to offer a single, comprehensive consensus based approach or construct, significant headway was made in clarifying some of the central issues and considerations regarding the habitat listed species need to recover. Further, the group concurs on a number of ways to strengthen recovery planning and on programs and procedures that can provide additional landowner incentives that, if instituted, promise to redound to the benefit of listed species.” “In essence, the group believes that it should be possible for you and your Congressional colleagues to take steps that would improve the law’s effectiveness for the species at risk, make government activities more efficient, and reduce the concerns of regulated parties. It is the opinion of the group that addressing all three of these issues—the biological needs of the species, the efficiency of government, and the concerns of those most directly affected by the Act’s provisions—is the only practical way to move forward if the goal is to do so in a more consensus-based manner.” “If an objective is to list fewer and delist more species, then it will be important to look beyond the ESA in isolation toward additional conservation measures by state and local governments, private sector efforts, and other regulatory and non-regulatory programs. The ESA in its current form cannot shoulder this burden alone.” “The group emerged from its first meeting in Keystone with the view that, if it were possible, the benefits of ‘building a better mousetrap’ might yield substantially bolder and more important benefits than ‘tweaks’ to the existing ESA regime.” The Keystone recommendations clearly show the need for ESA modernization. Many on both sides of the aisle in the Senate are serious about improving ESA to allow for better protection and improved recovery. We can certainly do better than a ratio of 10 – or 11 – species recovered for every 1,300 listed.

In Case You Missed It…Green Goons & ‘Rights’ Loons

Saturday January 28, 2006

In Case You Missed It…

Editorial highlight: “It’s good that the feds moved against ELF now - before someone dies.”

The New York Post Green Goons & ‘Rights’ Loons

January 28, 2006

So, will the American Civil Liberties Union apologize to the FBI?

Just last month, the ACLU screamed bloody murder that the FBI was “using counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate domestic political organizations, despite a lack of evidence that the groups are engaging in or supporting violent action.”

What will they say now - following a 65-count federal indictment of 11 members of the radical “environmental” groups, Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front? …

Their fellow travelers doubtless will say that, indictments aside, the FBI’s surveillance of groups such as PETA or Greenpeace were unwarranted because they haven’t engaged in violent behavior.

Any political movement can have extremists - but both PETA and Greenpeace have themselves engaged in behavior that crosses the line.

Greenpeace’s attempts over the years to physically block whaling and nuclear testing has gotten it placed on various European nations’ terrorist lists.

PETA has contributed money to ELF/ALF and refuses to condemn their eco-terrorist tactics.

Just three years ago - after a donkey loaded with explosives was used on an unsuccessful attack - PETA head Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, urging the Palestinian Authority not to use animals to kill Israelis. Note that she didn’t condemn the attacks against Israeli civilians, explaining, “It is not my business to inject myself into human wars.”

As FBI Director Robert Mueller said recently: “Terrorism is terrorism.”

None can be tolerated.

It’s good that the feds moved against ELF now - before someone dies.

It’s also a good thing that the FBI is keeping an eye on some of the other environmental domestic groups.

And, no, we’re not expecting the ACLU to be offering an apology anytime soon.

Click here for the full text of the editorial (online registration required).

Click here for the full text of the editorial.

Green Goons & ‘Rights’ Loons

 

In Case You Missed It…Editorial: Terrorists, by Any Name (The Wall Street Journal, 01/25/06)

Wednesday January 25, 2006

In Case You Missed It…

 Editorial highlight: “Law enforcement agencies have made some important arrests in recent years, yet they still face difficulties tracking down these thugs -- who operate in underground cells linked to organizations such as the Earth Liberation Front or Animal Liberation Front. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe last year introduced legislation to give authorities more tools to prosecute ecoterrorists; current statutes don’t cover many ecoterrorist activities, such as threats or coercion against third-party targets. The sooner Congress takes this up the better, and more news coverage of their widespread threats and violence wouldn’t hurt either.”

 

The Wall Street Journal

Terrorists, by Any Name

January 25, 2006

Web link: Terrorists, by Any Name

Osama bin Laden’s latest tape was such big news last week that its coverage swamped some other major terror news: that the Bush Administration has rounded up some of America’s most dangerous domestic terrorists.

The Justice Department on Friday released a 65-count indictment against 11 members of an animal-rights and ecoterrorism outfit that for more than four years had spread violence and destruction across five Western states. Using fire and explosives, the individuals stand accused of targeting ranger stations, animal-holding facilities, lumber companies, timber farms, a ski resort and even a police department. Eight have been detained; another three are believed to be hiding outside the country.

Credit here goes to the FBI, which in recent years has listed green extremists as a top domestic terror threat -- responsible for more than 1,200 criminal acts and millions of dollars in damage. In recent years these outfits have been expanding their scope, targeting bodies that are only marginally linked to practices they resent. The New York Stock Exchange’s recent decision to postpone the listing of Huntingdon Life Sciences -- a U.K. animal-research company that has been a top terrorist target for years -- was put down to the Exchange’s worry that it would be next on the hit list.

Law enforcement agencies have made some important arrests in recent years, yet they still face difficulties tracking down these thugs -- who operate in underground cells linked to organizations such as the Earth Liberation Front or Animal Liberation Front. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe last year introduced legislation to give authorities more tools to prosecute ecoterrorists; current statutes don’t cover many ecoterrorist activities, such as threats or coercion against third-party targets. The sooner Congress takes this up the better, and more news coverage of their widespread threats and violence wouldn’t hurt either.

###

 

 

 

In Case You Missed It…
When greenies go nuts: tales of the eco-11 terrorists

Tuesday January 24, 2006

In Case You Missed It…

Column Highlight: “Ecoterrorism cannot be wrapped in justification any more than terrorism anywhere, for whatever crackpot dreams.”

The Seattle Times

When greenies go nuts: tales of the eco-11 terrorists

January 22, 2006

James Vesely, Seattle Times columnist

 

CHARGES against individuals who reportedly formed a ring of ecoterrorists is good news for the Northwest and a validation for the FBI, whose agents persisted over long years to assemble evidence of arson and property destruction.

At a news conference Friday, the feds disclosed 65 counts against 11 people for criminal behavior in acts linked to ALF and ELF the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. Eight of the eco-11 are in custody.

In the bucolic Pacific Northwest, where nature is an icon and tree-hugging is serious, the liberation-fronters perform the role of the Bad Seed. They take environmentalism to the point of dangerous absurdity. …

They don’t target or harm people, is the defense used by the ecoterrorists, but of course they do. They harm families and research, paychecks and public wealth. They stain environmentalism with their unbalanced fervor. The individuals appear as normal as the trees, but with secret lives of destruction a firefighter, a Southwest bookstore owner and a health-care worker for the disabled are among those found and charged. One committed suicide in jail, others appeared at the courthouse in Eugene, Ore., smiling the smiles of the righteous.  

There is a question about ecoterrorism that environmentalists from Eugene to Juneau should ask themselves. Is it not enough to decry the eco-11’s violence but silently agree with their goals?

Torching a horse slaughterhouse is still arson, and wrecking some SUVs or high tension wires is still about a violent means to an end. The person thought responsible for the Vail fire is also the prime suspect for the 2001 fire at the University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture.

Much is said and written about the fragility of the wild, about the ocean currents and the melting ice. Those caught in California were thought to be targeting fish hatcheries next, and maybe a cell tower. There’s a good way to get people of the Northwest on your side – kill fish and cut off cellphones.

Ecoterrorism cannot be wrapped in justification any more than terrorism anywhere, for whatever crackpot dreams.

Click here for the full text of the James Vesely’s column. When greenies go nuts: tales of the eco-11 terrorists

 

 

 

 

 

In Case You Missed It… Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial: Terrorism: Criminal nature January 19, 2006

Friday January 20, 2006

In Case You Missed It…

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Editorial: Terrorism: Criminal nature

January 19, 2006

When one justifies any kind of terrorism, approving or rejecting more is just a matter of quibbling about details. There’s no philosophical difference between approving the torching of a large new home on Camano Island or the targeting of the tallest towers in Manhattan.  

It’s heartening to see the FBI closing in on Americans who commit acts of violence in the name of environmental protection. Recent arrests indicate the FBI has begun to develop a much better understanding of the secretive ranks of so-called ecoterrorist groups. Crime sprees committed in the name of activist groups have taken an increasing toll on property and the public sense of community, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. And arson runs the continual risk of claiming human lives. …  

Like other criminals, ecoterrorists have decided their desires take precedence over others’ rights. Law enforcement agencies and the public need to confront such arrogant, vicious thinking, whether it originates abroad or at home.

Click here for the full text of the editorial.

Terrorism: Criminal nature

 

 

In Case You Missed It…Kyoto’s Big Con, The Wall Street Journal

Thursday January 19, 2006

January 19, 2006 Editorial highlight: “The U.S. dropped its signature from Kyoto because arbitrary emissions targets are both pointless and economically damaging. No proof exists that lower emissions reduce global warming. The idea that human activity influences climate change one way or another is far from proven, given the overwhelming role nature itself plays in atmospheric changes. And if the warming trend of recent decades continues -- by no means a certainty -- it might well be a boon to humanity.” The Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook Kyoto’s Big Con Page A14 The Kyoto environmental protocol committed nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By this standard, the pact’s biggest fans, the Europeans, are failing. And what about the U.S., the global villain for withdrawing approval of the accord in 2001? It’s doing very well, thank you. Let’s go to the latest numbers from the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. Most European countries have seen an increase in greenhouse gas emissions since signing Kyoto with great fanfare in 1997. No fewer than 13 out of the 15 original EU signatories are on track to miss their 2010 emissions targets -- by as much as 33 percentage points, in the case of Spain. Or consider Denmark, home of the EU’s environmental watchdog. Rather than reduce levels by 21% as the accord stipulates, Denmark has so far notched a 6.3% increase in emissions since 1990, the base year used in Kyoto. The likely gap between its Kyoto commitment and its emissions levels projected for 2010 is 25.2 percentage points. The U.S. dropped its signature from Kyoto because arbitrary emissions targets are both pointless and economically damaging. No proof exists that lower emissions reduce global warming. The idea that human activity influences climate change one way or another is far from proven, given the overwhelming role nature itself plays in atmospheric changes. And if the warming trend of recent decades continues -- by no means a certainty -- it might well be a boon to humanity. … Alas, no one is talking about reducing the amount of hot air produced by politicians. At the U.N.’s environmental summit in Montreal last year, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas of Greece spoke grandly of Europe’s continuing leadership in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada, another Kyoto diehard, chimed in that America lacked a “global conscience.” For the record, Greece and Canada saw emissions rise 23% and 24%, respectively, since 1990, far above the U.S. rate. The nonsense that passes for debate at U.N. gabfests isn’t news. But it is newsworthy that Kyoto’s arbitrary targets were mainly cant. Countries that reduce those emissions potentially damaging to health or property do so by investing in cleaner technology. That is possible because of policies that promote economic growth and business investment. Unhampered by Kyoto targets, America’s economy is more nimble and better able to adapt to changing technology. We knew Kyoto was bad for the global economy. It turns out it’s bad for the environment as well. Click here for the full text of the editorial.

Kyoto's Big Con

The Truth Behind “Environmentalists’” Opposition to Judge Alito

Tuesday January 10, 2006

The Truth Behind “Environmentalists’” Opposition to Judge Alito “Environmental” Special Interests: Shills for a Broader Liberal Agenda Unable to provide any specifics in its latest e-mail blitz, Earthjustice has gone on the record opposing Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court: This is it: hearings on Judge Samuel Alito Jr.’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court are taking place all this week. Though Earthjustice has not opposed a Supreme Court nominee in almost two decades, this time we have no choice: Judge Alito has a record of extreme decisions that threaten to invalidate laws protecting the environment and enabling citizens to enforce those laws in court. We cannot afford to have someone with Judge Alito’s record deciding which rights will be protected, and which will be thrown out. America’s highest court, and our nation’s landmark environmental protections, deserve better. Fact: Americans deserve better than such deceptive rhetoric. Organizations such as Earthjustice and the Sierra Club are merely components of a liberal coalition that nearly always, in an effort to exploit environmental issues to pursue a broader liberal agenda, oppose Republican judicial nominees. Earthjustice and the Sierra Club are members of the so-called Alliance for Justice, whose president, Nan Aron, pledged to do “whatever it takes” to keep conservatives off the Court. When asked what she would do to stop the Alito nomination, she replied, “You name it. We’ll do it.” The “first time in almost two decades” claim is meaningless when one considers that Democrat Bill Clinton was president for the majority of that time. Recall that “environmental” special interests actively opposed Clarence Thomas’ nomination in 1991. Judge Alito’s Solid Track Record in Protecting the Environment and Upholding the Law: Ø In FMC Corp. v. Dept. of Commerce, 29 F.3d 833 (3d Cir. 1994), Judge Alito joined a 9-3 decision that ordered the Federal government to spend millions of dollars to clean up toxic waste from a World War II industrial facility that polluted ground water. Ø In Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 121 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 1997), Judge Alito wrote the court’s opinion upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designation of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley region as violating national ozone standards after it exceeded those limits. Judge Alito wrote, “Although we are sympathetic to the view expressed by many within the Area that this rule threatens serious economic harm, we recognize that our role as a reviewing court is strictly limited.” Ø In ALM Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 974 F.2d 380 (3d Cir. 1992), Judge Alito voted to uphold the EPA’s assessment of fines against a company for violating reporting requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Heads in the Sand On Eco-terror Threats

Monday January 9, 2006

Fact of the Day: Wednesday, January 4, 2005 Heads in the Sand On Eco-terror Threats Naïve Grist Blogger Defends Eco-terror Against Appropriate Law Enforcement Crackdown No one would ever suggest that the Grist online magazine is fair and balanced when it comes to reporting on the environment, but its bias toward environmental extremism is most evident in its December 27th blog posting, “‘Eco-terror’ and the ELF,” by David Roberts: When the American Civil Liberties Union this week released a new batch of documents obtained from the FBI verifying that the federal agency has been monitoring domestic environmental- and animal-rights groups, it was only the latest evidence of government working on behalf of the anti-environmentalist industry and property-rights advocates to, as one of those advocates put it in 1992, “destroy the environmental movement.” … [LA Weekly’s Judith] Lewis goes on to question whether the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) actually exists as an organization at all. Its alleged website is little more than a hook for a bunch of advertising; its alleged spokesmen are self-promoting cranks; the criminals allegedly connected to it deny any such connections. … The documents the FBI has released so far, most of them heavily edited accounts of monitoring activities directed at Greenpeace and PETA, may be just the tip of the surveillance iceberg. Fact: First, what is an “alleged website?” It is a website. More importantly, numerous devastating acts of arson, threats of physical violence, and even the blunt endorsement of murder by the “alleged” voice of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) himself, Jerry Vlasak, have prompted the FBI to take a closer look at extremist organizations like ELF, ALF and SHAC, as well as their links to other organizations such as PETA and Greenpeace. And rightly so. FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism John Lewis, who has twice testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, calls eco-terror the greatest domestic terror threat in the United States. It is perfectly proper for the FBI to monitor groups such as PETA and Greenpeace, particularly because of Greenpeace’s long history of direct action against shipping and other facilities. Not widely known, PETA has a history of funding ELF and ALF operations, clearly detailed in, of all places, their IRS Form 990 – “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax.” PETA also mysteriously paid $70,000 to an ALF member after a Michigan research was destroyed in an attack. That was hardly an “alleged” fire. The FBI is working to protect every U.S. citizen and the American economy. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible. EPW Hearing Exhibits May 18, 2005 Exhibit #1: ALF Instructional Guide to Fire Bombs and Arson - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #2a: ALF Raid University of Iowa Laboratory - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #2b: ALF Raid University of Iowa Laboratory - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #3: ALF Boasts of Raid on University of Iowa Laboratory Including Continuing Threat to Related Professors - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #4: Largest ELF Attack in History-Garden Communities - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #5: PETA Tax Return Claiming Grant to Terrorist Organization - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #6: PETA Supports Terrorist Activity- ALF Army of the Kind - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #7: Dr. Best Supports Terrorist Activity as Their Liaison to the Public - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #8: Contributors blocked from financing ALF through the Internet - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #9: ELF earned Commissions from Book Sales through ELF Web Site - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #10: Dr. Steven Best with 2 ALF Members. All 3 Speakers at Fresno State Conference on “Revolutionary Environmentalism” Feb. 13-14, 2003 - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #11: PETA Gives Over $70,000 to ALF Member After Burning Down Michigan State Research Lab - Click here for link: (.pdf) Exhibit #12: ELF Attacks on Development and Car Dealership - Click here for link: (.pdf)
« First < Prev Next > Last »

Related Links