N.D. Officials Probe Pelican Disappearance
Starmail - 15. Jun, 18:04
Artenschutz
15
Jun
2004
8
Jun
2004
Eagles Are Keeping Out Condos, for Now
Pressure to build in the Big Bear area is strong, despite a water shortage and wildlife worries.
By Louis Sahagun
LATimes Staff Writer
June 6, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eagles6jun06,1,6515673.story
An enclave of bald eagles has thwarted construction of a massive condominium complex for now in the rustic Big Bear Lake hamlet of Fawnskin.
As many as 14 of the majestic birds have made a seasonal home in the branches of the forested glen overlooking the site where developer Irving Okovita wants to build a 133-unit condominium complex and 175-slip marina.
But bald eagles may come off the federally endangered species list by year's end, a move that could allow construction to proceed. That concerns some residents, who fear that the Okovita development and others could imperil overtaxed aquifers that supply water to tinder-dry mountain communities, like this one, that barely escaped last fall's raging forest fires.
Underlying the controversy is a building boom fueled by low interest
rates and pent-up demand for vacation homes, say developers and water officials. Yet, at a time when there are more building permits being issued than there are available water connections, some officials are worried about the impact on the drought-stricken region.
Big Bear Valley Community Services, which serves a portion of the region, is limiting water connections to 96 per year.
"If the water shortage gets more severe, we'll ratchet down even further," said water manager Gary Keller.
"I'm not happy about the building boom," he said. "But [in accord with a central tenet of western civilization's enforced ideology] people have private property rights [that override aquifers and wildlife]. Besides that, as water purveyors, it's not our job to control building. It's our job to provide water."
That kind of talk disturbs high-country residents like 93-year-old Tom Core, a Big Bear Valley historian.
"What we need to do is stop construction right now," he said. "Springs that flowed all my life have recently gone bone dry. What's happening here is a disaster, and it shouldn't be allowed."
Todd Murphy, who serves on several Big Bear Valley volunteer boards, agreed.
"What we're seeing is a lack of understanding that you just can't build out like this without serious consequences," he said.
Murphy is leading a petition drive aimed at creating a new formula for growth in the region. The petition calls for a moratorium on growth any time there are water restrictions.
Current restrictions forbid outdoor watering from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and require immediate repair of all leaking waterlines and faucets. Water from landscape irrigation is not allowed to run into the street, and new landscaping is limited to 1,000 square feet of turf.
It makes little sense to many residents that they are forced to conserve while the three regional water districts continue to allow developers to build homes and condominiums.
"People are fed up," Murphy said. "We're going to bring reason into this valley."
Last month, a federal judge blocked construction of the 133-unit condominium complex on grounds it could harm the eagles that spend winter months in surrounding forests.
When fully developed, Marina Point on Big Bear Lake's north shore would feature a tennis court, a clubhouse and the marina.
The eagles flock to the area between November and April to perch in the pine trees and forage in what remains a quiet, rural forested area along the Pacific Flyway -- a transcontinental migration route for millions of birds. They start migrating out of the San Bernardino Mountains in late March, heading back to summer habitat in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Alberta, Canada.
The judge's order will stand until the case is resolved -- a process that could drag on for years, or until bald eagles are taken off the federal endangered species list, a move that wildlife authorities say could occur by year's end.
In court documents, attorney Arthur Wellman, who represents the Marina Point developers, contends that the project would actually enhance the environment and improve conditions for eagles by taking down dead trees and planting new ones.
That argument was disputed in a lawsuit filed by the Center for
Biological Diversity and Friends of Fawnskin. The suit accused
developers of operating without permits required by the Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
The lawsuit also pointed out that explosive growth over the last two
decades on the lake's southern shores has forced the region's shrinking bald eagle population to congregate on the opposite side near Fawnskin.
In the last quarter-century, the average number of bald eagles seen in the San Bernardino Mountains has fallen to 14 from 27, according to annual bird counts conducted by San Bernardino National Forest biologists.
Now, with four large-scale projects proposed for the Fawnskin area, "the cumulative impact of development ... could very well lead to the complete disappearance of the bald eagle from the area," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Kassie Siegel.
Lawyer Wellman, however, was more concerned about how bald eagles were faring nationwide.
"The bald eagle has made a great resurgence and will probably be
delisted by the end of this year. That's a good thing for everybody," he said. "If and when they are delisted ... the plaintiffs should dismiss their claim."
In the meantime, Big Bear Valley's water districts are stepping up
conservation measures even as new upscale housing developments with names such as Castle Glen, Meadowbrook Estates and Maple Ridge are changing the character of this former workingman's retreat.
Castle Glen is a collection of multistory homes on landscaped hills overlooking wetlands on the eastern end of Big Bear Lake, where bald eagles used to hunt for ducks and trout. Today, the area is dry and the eagles have all but disappeared.
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
Informant: Informant: Teresa Binstock
By Louis Sahagun
LATimes Staff Writer
June 6, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eagles6jun06,1,6515673.story
An enclave of bald eagles has thwarted construction of a massive condominium complex for now in the rustic Big Bear Lake hamlet of Fawnskin.
As many as 14 of the majestic birds have made a seasonal home in the branches of the forested glen overlooking the site where developer Irving Okovita wants to build a 133-unit condominium complex and 175-slip marina.
But bald eagles may come off the federally endangered species list by year's end, a move that could allow construction to proceed. That concerns some residents, who fear that the Okovita development and others could imperil overtaxed aquifers that supply water to tinder-dry mountain communities, like this one, that barely escaped last fall's raging forest fires.
Underlying the controversy is a building boom fueled by low interest
rates and pent-up demand for vacation homes, say developers and water officials. Yet, at a time when there are more building permits being issued than there are available water connections, some officials are worried about the impact on the drought-stricken region.
Big Bear Valley Community Services, which serves a portion of the region, is limiting water connections to 96 per year.
"If the water shortage gets more severe, we'll ratchet down even further," said water manager Gary Keller.
"I'm not happy about the building boom," he said. "But [in accord with a central tenet of western civilization's enforced ideology] people have private property rights [that override aquifers and wildlife]. Besides that, as water purveyors, it's not our job to control building. It's our job to provide water."
That kind of talk disturbs high-country residents like 93-year-old Tom Core, a Big Bear Valley historian.
"What we need to do is stop construction right now," he said. "Springs that flowed all my life have recently gone bone dry. What's happening here is a disaster, and it shouldn't be allowed."
Todd Murphy, who serves on several Big Bear Valley volunteer boards, agreed.
"What we're seeing is a lack of understanding that you just can't build out like this without serious consequences," he said.
Murphy is leading a petition drive aimed at creating a new formula for growth in the region. The petition calls for a moratorium on growth any time there are water restrictions.
Current restrictions forbid outdoor watering from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and require immediate repair of all leaking waterlines and faucets. Water from landscape irrigation is not allowed to run into the street, and new landscaping is limited to 1,000 square feet of turf.
It makes little sense to many residents that they are forced to conserve while the three regional water districts continue to allow developers to build homes and condominiums.
"People are fed up," Murphy said. "We're going to bring reason into this valley."
Last month, a federal judge blocked construction of the 133-unit condominium complex on grounds it could harm the eagles that spend winter months in surrounding forests.
When fully developed, Marina Point on Big Bear Lake's north shore would feature a tennis court, a clubhouse and the marina.
The eagles flock to the area between November and April to perch in the pine trees and forage in what remains a quiet, rural forested area along the Pacific Flyway -- a transcontinental migration route for millions of birds. They start migrating out of the San Bernardino Mountains in late March, heading back to summer habitat in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Alberta, Canada.
The judge's order will stand until the case is resolved -- a process that could drag on for years, or until bald eagles are taken off the federal endangered species list, a move that wildlife authorities say could occur by year's end.
In court documents, attorney Arthur Wellman, who represents the Marina Point developers, contends that the project would actually enhance the environment and improve conditions for eagles by taking down dead trees and planting new ones.
That argument was disputed in a lawsuit filed by the Center for
Biological Diversity and Friends of Fawnskin. The suit accused
developers of operating without permits required by the Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
The lawsuit also pointed out that explosive growth over the last two
decades on the lake's southern shores has forced the region's shrinking bald eagle population to congregate on the opposite side near Fawnskin.
In the last quarter-century, the average number of bald eagles seen in the San Bernardino Mountains has fallen to 14 from 27, according to annual bird counts conducted by San Bernardino National Forest biologists.
Now, with four large-scale projects proposed for the Fawnskin area, "the cumulative impact of development ... could very well lead to the complete disappearance of the bald eagle from the area," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Kassie Siegel.
Lawyer Wellman, however, was more concerned about how bald eagles were faring nationwide.
"The bald eagle has made a great resurgence and will probably be
delisted by the end of this year. That's a good thing for everybody," he said. "If and when they are delisted ... the plaintiffs should dismiss their claim."
In the meantime, Big Bear Valley's water districts are stepping up
conservation measures even as new upscale housing developments with names such as Castle Glen, Meadowbrook Estates and Maple Ridge are changing the character of this former workingman's retreat.
Castle Glen is a collection of multistory homes on landscaped hills overlooking wetlands on the eastern end of Big Bear Lake, where bald eagles used to hunt for ducks and trout. Today, the area is dry and the eagles have all but disappeared.
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
Informant: Informant: Teresa Binstock
Starmail - 8. Jun, 16:49
7
Jun
2004
Proposed Rule Fails to Protect Migratory Birds from Military Actions
June 07, 2004
Last week the Bush administration proposed a rule that would free the Department of Defense (DoD) from federal environmental regulations that protect migratory birds, and allow the military to make its own determination of whether its actions were causing harm to wildlife.
"It's the fox guarding the henhouse," Peter Galvin, conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity, told BushGreenwatch. "When are they ever going to find on their own that their activities are causing a problem?"
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule, published in the June 2 Federal Register, allows for the "incidental taking" of migratory birds by the DoD during military readiness training. While it also requires DoD to develop "appropriate conservation measures" if proposed military activities would "have a significant adverse effect on a population of migratory bird species of concern," it allows DoD to determine whether any such adverse effects are occurring. [1]
The DoD has asserted that adhering to environmental protection laws compromises military training and readiness. However, a General Accounting Office report in 2002 found that the Pentagon could not substantiate this claim.
The bigger question, said Galvin, is why the DoD is allowed to operate under different rules in the first place. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), enacted in 1918, covers the United States' commitment to four international treaties -- with Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia -- to protect numerous migratory birds and their habitats. But in 2002, Congress granted the DoD a temporary, one-year exemption from the MBTA under the premise that environmental regulations interfered with the military’s ability to ready itself for battle.
During that year, the administration was to come up with a plan to minimize the killing of migratory birds during military training exercises. The newly published rule was due out six months ago -- last December.
"Should DoD be exempt at all?" asked Galvin. "We think the answer is no. This rule is merely a euphemism for gutting environmental protections."
Until the new rule takes effect, the DoD will continue to benefit from its previous, blanket exemption.
The military’s push for an exemption stems from a case in which the U.S. military conducted bombing practice on an island in the Pacific that is a key nesting site for migratory birds, including frigatebirds, red-footed boobies and Pacific golden plovers. The public interest law firm Earthjustice successfully argued in federal court that the bombing exercises violated the MBTA.
The case further raised the ire of conservationists when the Pentagon argued in a legal brief that conservationists actually benefit from the military’s killing of birds because it helps make some species more rare -- and "bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one." [2]
President Bush has since nominated the attorney who made that argument, William Haynes II, to a seat on a federal appellate court.
TAKE ACTION
To comment on the proposed rule, contact: DODMBTARULE@fws.gov. Comments are due by July 30, 2004.
SOURCES:
[1] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service press release, May 28, 2004.
[2] Center for Biological Diversity v Pirie, 191 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D.D.C., 2002).
Source: http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000132.php
Last week the Bush administration proposed a rule that would free the Department of Defense (DoD) from federal environmental regulations that protect migratory birds, and allow the military to make its own determination of whether its actions were causing harm to wildlife.
"It's the fox guarding the henhouse," Peter Galvin, conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity, told BushGreenwatch. "When are they ever going to find on their own that their activities are causing a problem?"
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule, published in the June 2 Federal Register, allows for the "incidental taking" of migratory birds by the DoD during military readiness training. While it also requires DoD to develop "appropriate conservation measures" if proposed military activities would "have a significant adverse effect on a population of migratory bird species of concern," it allows DoD to determine whether any such adverse effects are occurring. [1]
The DoD has asserted that adhering to environmental protection laws compromises military training and readiness. However, a General Accounting Office report in 2002 found that the Pentagon could not substantiate this claim.
The bigger question, said Galvin, is why the DoD is allowed to operate under different rules in the first place. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), enacted in 1918, covers the United States' commitment to four international treaties -- with Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia -- to protect numerous migratory birds and their habitats. But in 2002, Congress granted the DoD a temporary, one-year exemption from the MBTA under the premise that environmental regulations interfered with the military’s ability to ready itself for battle.
During that year, the administration was to come up with a plan to minimize the killing of migratory birds during military training exercises. The newly published rule was due out six months ago -- last December.
"Should DoD be exempt at all?" asked Galvin. "We think the answer is no. This rule is merely a euphemism for gutting environmental protections."
Until the new rule takes effect, the DoD will continue to benefit from its previous, blanket exemption.
The military’s push for an exemption stems from a case in which the U.S. military conducted bombing practice on an island in the Pacific that is a key nesting site for migratory birds, including frigatebirds, red-footed boobies and Pacific golden plovers. The public interest law firm Earthjustice successfully argued in federal court that the bombing exercises violated the MBTA.
The case further raised the ire of conservationists when the Pentagon argued in a legal brief that conservationists actually benefit from the military’s killing of birds because it helps make some species more rare -- and "bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one." [2]
President Bush has since nominated the attorney who made that argument, William Haynes II, to a seat on a federal appellate court.
TAKE ACTION
To comment on the proposed rule, contact: DODMBTARULE@fws.gov. Comments are due by July 30, 2004.
SOURCES:
[1] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service press release, May 28, 2004.
[2] Center for Biological Diversity v Pirie, 191 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D.D.C., 2002).
Source: http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000132.php
Starmail - 7. Jun, 18:22
TOUGHER WILDLIFE PROTECTION LAW UNDER WAY BODY
China plans to toughen its wildlife protection laws to preserve wild animal species and improve their care, State Forestry Administration officials say. Investigative work and the drafting of new legal rules are being completed for...
Read the article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/07/content_337154.htm
Informant: News-headlines greenpeace
Read the article:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/07/content_337154.htm
Informant: News-headlines greenpeace
Starmail - 7. Jun, 12:18
Britain fights for giant squid
by Charles Clover
BRITAIN is expecting a fight with other EU fishing nations on Monday as it calls for a United Nations ban on deep-sea trawling to preserve creatures such as the giant squid. Trawling on deep-sea mountains and cold coral...
Read the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/05/wsquid05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/05/ixworld.html
Informant: News-headlines greenpeace
BRITAIN is expecting a fight with other EU fishing nations on Monday as it calls for a United Nations ban on deep-sea trawling to preserve creatures such as the giant squid. Trawling on deep-sea mountains and cold coral...
Read the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/05/wsquid05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/05/ixworld.html
Informant: News-headlines greenpeace
Starmail - 7. Jun, 12:09
2
Jun
2004
US Endangered Species Act Under Attack
Tell the Fish and Wildlife Service there’s a better way to protect endangered animals than killing them.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is proposing a rule change to the Endangered Species Act that will allow endangered animals and body parts to be imported into the U.S. This change essentially eliminates the need for a permit before an endangered species can be imported.
The proposed change would dramatically increase the likelihood of extinction for more than 550 endangered species. Let the Bush administration know this is unacceptable.
http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?ID=M6419783174914476743555&iEvent=32742
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is proposing a rule change to the Endangered Species Act that will allow endangered animals and body parts to be imported into the U.S. This change essentially eliminates the need for a permit before an endangered species can be imported.
The proposed change would dramatically increase the likelihood of extinction for more than 550 endangered species. Let the Bush administration know this is unacceptable.
http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?ID=M6419783174914476743555&iEvent=32742
Starmail - 2. Jun, 23:18
26
Mai
2004
Tell the UN that bottom trawling stinks
We don't like bare bottoms - sea bottoms, that is. Bottom trawling is the world's most destructive fishing practice. We like to compare it to beef farming by dragging a net through towns, cities and forests to catch a couple of cows. Somewhere between 500,000 and 5,000,000 marine species have yet to be discovered. But these very species are in serious danger from bottom trawling.
We think bottom trawling stinks.
Tell your friends how you feel about it by sending our naughty e-card: http://act.greenpeace.org/ecs/s2?sk=fxd&i=1410
Tell the UN that we want bottom trawlers to butt out by signing our appeal to be presented to the responsible UN delegates in June:
http://act.greenpeace.org/col/get?i=1400&sk=std
Find out more about bottom trawling:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/campaigns/intro?campaign_id=461050
We think bottom trawling stinks.
Tell your friends how you feel about it by sending our naughty e-card: http://act.greenpeace.org/ecs/s2?sk=fxd&i=1410
Tell the UN that we want bottom trawlers to butt out by signing our appeal to be presented to the responsible UN delegates in June:
http://act.greenpeace.org/col/get?i=1400&sk=std
Find out more about bottom trawling:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/campaigns/intro?campaign_id=461050
Starmail - 26. Mai, 23:27
18
Mai
2004
Keine Chance für Schweinswale
Artenschutz
18.05.04
"Die Chance, Kleinwale in der EU zu schützen, wurde wieder einmal verspielt", so das Fazit der Gesellschaft zur Rettung der Delphine (GRD) über die neue EU-Verordnung zum Schutz von Kleinwalen. Die wirtschaftlichen Interessen der fischereiorientierten Länder hätten, wie üblich, Vorrang vor dem Naturschutz. Eine Analyse der Verordnung durch den GRD hatten erschreckende Fakten aufgedeckt. Wesentliche Punkte des ursprünglichen Verordnungsentwurfs seien verwässert wurden.
Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php4?Nr=8471
18.05.04
"Die Chance, Kleinwale in der EU zu schützen, wurde wieder einmal verspielt", so das Fazit der Gesellschaft zur Rettung der Delphine (GRD) über die neue EU-Verordnung zum Schutz von Kleinwalen. Die wirtschaftlichen Interessen der fischereiorientierten Länder hätten, wie üblich, Vorrang vor dem Naturschutz. Eine Analyse der Verordnung durch den GRD hatten erschreckende Fakten aufgedeckt. Wesentliche Punkte des ursprünglichen Verordnungsentwurfs seien verwässert wurden.
Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php4?Nr=8471
Starmail - 18. Mai, 18:30
13
Mai
2004
Cod could be wiped out within 15 years, says WWF
The world's cod stocks could be wiped out by 2020 because of overfishing, illegal catches, and oil exploration, the environment group WWF said Thursday.
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-05-13/s_23853.asp
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-05-13/s_23853.asp
Starmail - 13. Mai, 10:57
