The politics of nature

The politics of nature
Bush has said his environmental strategies won't harm nature or man--a
claim some doubt

Chicago Tribune , December 19,2003
by Julie Deardorff

Standing before a group of schoolchildren, President Bush repeated an
oft-stated promise that his environmental policies would stand on hard
scientific research.


"We'll base decisions on sound science," he said in 2001. "We'll call
upon the best minds of America to help us achieve an objective, which
is: cleaner air, cleaner water and a better use of our land."


But the role of science in forging environmental policy has grown into
a central controversy of Bush's presidency. Critics say that although
Bush vowed to "rely on the best of evidence before deciding," many of
his policies dismiss the scientific recommendations of federal
agencies.


From air to wetlands, Bush's policies have sparked a national debate,
prompting a closer look at some of the most controversial
environmental decisions in decades.


Tuesday, a federal judge agreed that science was being misapplied in
one case. On the eve of the snowmobile season's opening day, the
National Park Service was ordered to restore a plan--cast aside by the
Bush administration--that will phase out snowmobile use at Yellowstone
National Park.


In another development that pleased environmental groups, the
administration retreated from a proposal that could have reduced
federal protection for millions of acres of wetlands. Facing public
opposition to the plan, the White House reaffirmed its commitment to
the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands.


White House officials say "sound science" fits with Bush's
market-based approach to environmental protection. The administration
says it's possible to balance the need for biodiversity, clean air and
clean water with economic growth, energy production and reduced
regulation.


Nevertheless, the administration misapplied science when deciding
policy on more than 20 issues, said a report by the minority party
staff of the House Committee on Government Reform. The Democratic
report charged that the administration also has manipulated and
omitted work done by government scientists.


Other federal reports have determined that regulatory agencies,
including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park
Service, made decisions on clean air and national park issues based in
part on industry anecdotes and promises.


And leading scientific journals have questioned both the state of
scientific independence and several key Bush appointees who are former
lobbyists from the industries they now regulate.


Snowmobile decision


In the seesaw battle over snowmobiles in Yellowstone, a judge said
this week that the Bush administration's decision to relax the ban set
by the Clinton administration was inconsistent with scientific
findings.


In peak periods, more than 500 snowmobiles might zip through
Yellowstone's west entrance in one hour, motoring along in a single
corridor. Park employees, from snowmobile mechanics to west entrance
workers, have complained of nausea, dizziness, headaches, sore throats
and eye irritation from the high levels of toxic pollutants from
snowmobile emissions. A 2000 National Park Service report on
air-quality concerns related to snowmobiles found that "levels of
individual pollutants found in snowmobile exhaust, including
carcinogens such as benzene, can be high enough to be a threat to
human health."


For wildlife trying to survive harsh winters on stored fat supplies,
the roar of a snowmobile is another threat.


"Research has shown that their heart rates increase when a snowmobile
passes, indicating they are stressed even if they do not move away,"
according to a National Park Service's State of the Parks report. "Any
energy loss affects the animal's ability to survive in the winter."


Several studies by the EPA have said that banning the machines would
eliminate that noise, water and air pollution and is the best way to
preserve the park and its inhabitants.


A letter signed by eight former government officials, including Park
Service directors, urged the Bush administration to rescind its
decision.


"The Park Service should follow its own scientific studies about the
adverse effects of allowing snowmobiles to continue in the parks," the
letter said. "To ignore its conclusion would clearly be to accept
avoidable risks to health and safety, a narrowing of beneficial uses
and weaker preservation of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks."


The public overwhelmingly supported a ban on the machines set during
the Clinton administration that would have taken effect Wednesday. But
the Bush administration reversed the policy and said snowmobiles could
stay with some restrictions, including a daily limit on the machines
at each gate--which meant fewer snowmobiles during peak periods--and
the use of newer and cleaner machines. Snowmobiles were only allowed
on groomed roads, about 1 percent of the 2.2 million acre park.


The National Park Service argued that its plan struck a balance
between its dual missions of conservation and public access. But on
Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan rejected the argument,
saying, "conservation can rarely be trumped."


Sullivan also found that the Bush decision contradicted the scientific
analysis.


"There is evidence in the record that there isn't an explanation for
this change and that the supplemental environmental impact statement
was completely politically driven," he wrote in his 48-page brief.


Critics decry policies


In other instances, including public-land and clean-air issues,
critics say the Bush administration has glossed over scientific
studies in favor of industry.


Citing national energy needs, the administration has pushed to open
the coastal plain of the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for oil exploration and development. Though dropped from this
year's energy bill, the plan still is on the agenda, White House
officials say.


Often described as "America's Serengeti" because of its abundance of
wildlife, the refuge makes up 5 percent of Alaska's North Slope. The
remaining 95 percent is open to drilling.


The Bush administration and industry say drilling can be performed in
an environmentally friendly manner, using new technology to probe
underneath the tundra without destroying the fragile arctic land. This
smaller "footprint" would prevent another sprawling Prudhoe Bay--North
America's largest oil field--which has turned parts of Alaska's North
Slope into a gritty industrial zone.


"The whole world doesn't have to be zero sum," Bush said to
Environmental Youth Award winners in 2001. "It doesn't have to be that
we find more energy and, therefore, the environment suffers. We've got
technologies now to make sure that we explore and protect the
environment at the same time ... we need to be good stewards of the
land."


Putting nature at risk?


But federal reports have found that oil exploration and development
could significantly disturb the caribou, musk oxen, snow geese and
other species in the coastal plain, as well as the vegetation.


Although the plain is home to more than 200 species of birds and
mammals, it is the fate of the porcupine caribou herd that has been a
central issue. In the spring, when the snow recedes, 130,000 caribou
migrate over the mountains to the coastal plain, which is relatively
predator-free and well stocked with nutritious forage.


Three times in the last 18 years, lingering tundra snow has prevented
the caribou from reaching the coastal plain. In those three years,
calf survival was poorer because of less nutrition and higher levels
of predation.


Pipelines and roads associated with oil development in the coastal
plain area would displace the caribou cows, reducing the amount and
quality of forage during and after calving and render the herd more
vulnerable to predators.


"A reduction in annual calf survival of as little as 5 percent would
be sufficient to cause a decline in the porcupine caribou population,"
according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.


"Ecological science is never cut and dry," said wildlife biologist Jim
Sedinger, a member of the National Academy of Sciences committee that
studied the cumulative effects of oil and gas activities on Alaska's
North Slope. "When the administration is bent on development in
particular areas, it gives them an out; you can never say with
certainty what will happen. It's not just [the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge] issue--it's a number of them. They're using
uncertainty to ignore potential impacts of lots of different
activities."


Uncertainty was one of the reasons given after the administration
altered scientific reports that indicate a growing problem with
industry emissions and global warming.


In the EPA's annual 2002 report on air-pollution trends, a chapter on
climate was omitted, even though climate change had been addressed the
previous six years.


In June, the White House revised a section on global warming in the
EPA's comprehensive state of the environment report. Earlier drafts
had contained a section describing the risks of rising global
temperatures.


Former EPA chief Christie Whitman, who stepped down in June, said the
section was deleted because the agency could not agree on the science
in the climate-change debate. But it sparked widespread criticism.
Several members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
called for the White House to release the unaltered version of the EPA
report. The senators also said the action "brings into question the
ability and authority of the EPA or any agency within this
administration to publish unbiased scientific reports."


- - -


To our readers:


"Environmental Battlegrounds," a special photo report that appears as
a separate section in this newspaper, was printed on Monday to
accommodate production demands. Since then, there have been
developments in two of the issues covered in the report.


On Tuesday, a federal judge ordered the Bush administration to abandon
its plan to relax a ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.


On Wednesday, the administration steered away from a draft proposal
that would have removed federal protection from millions of acres of
wetlands. Those isolated wetlands, which are not connected to other
waterways, will continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the Army
Corps of Engineers.


Neither development is expected to end the debate, ensuring that each
issue will remain an environmental battleground.

Sound science. This administration lies and spins like no other.
Their reliance on politcally driven "science" led the the killing of
over 30,000 salmon on the Klamath to appease potato farmers; an
overturn of the snowmobile policy because the judge found their policy
"abritrary and capricious", will see many former BLM employees
involved in the San Rafael Swell land exchange going to prison for
undervaluing the land to be exchanged to line their own pockets, they
don't believe in Global Warming even though most scientists can prove
it is happening, former EPA Chief Whitman had to guts to leave due to
the pressure the administration placed on her to not use sound science
in her enforcement and rulemaking, the list goes on and on.

I love it. This administration will be taking a beating on their
environmental record in this year's election - not for their
environmental legacy but for their lying to the public with proof in
hand.

Ha!

Peace

On 28 Dec 2003 22:07:58 -0800, (Sportsmen
Against Bush) wrote:



"We'll base decisions on sound science," he said in 2001. "We'll call
upon the best minds of America to help us achieve an objective, which
is: cleaner air, cleaner water and a better use of our land."

Typical lying from the looney left. Just like all these wannabe political
analysts that know absolutely nothing except how to cut and paste tripe into
their brains and bother folks in an outdoor oriented newsgroup. Take this
a$$wipe for example, he claims the administration killed 30k salmon due to
the agricultural needs of the area. Dig down just one thin layer of
information and we see that this is a Fuc*** reservoir that was built
SPECIFICALLY for the farmer's irrigation. Natural habitat my A$$. Now why
don't you idiot leftists get a clue that the educated public isn't buying
you trash. Have I said enough? Good now if you have something to contribute
to back country discussions go for it.
Chris

"Hayduke" wrote in message
news

Sound science. This administration lies and spins like no other.
Their reliance on politcally driven "science" led the the killing of
over 30,000 salmon on the Klamath to appease potato farmers; an
overturn of the snowmobile policy because the judge found their policy
"abritrary and capricious", will see many former BLM employees
involved in the San Rafael Swell land exchange going to prison for
undervaluing the land to be exchanged to line their own pockets, they
don't believe in Global Warming even though most scientists can prove
it is happening, former EPA Chief Whitman had to guts to leave due to
the pressure the administration placed on her to not use sound science
in her enforcement and rulemaking, the list goes on and on.

I love it. This administration will be taking a beating on their
environmental record in this year's election - not for their
environmental legacy but for their lying to the public with proof in
hand.

Ha!

Peace

On 28 Dec 2003 22:07:58 -0800, (Sportsmen
Against Bush) wrote:



"We'll base decisions on sound science," he said in 2001. "We'll call
upon the best minds of America to help us achieve an objective, which
is: cleaner air, cleaner water and a better use of our land."

Such hatred for science, the gooney right. Karl Rove was involved in
this one, too, so Gordon Smith could get the Klamath Basin vote.

And, Mr. Hill, I lived in Malin, Oregon, so I know the issues.

Cya!

Peace

18 November 2003

For More Information Contact:
Glen Spain, PCFFA Northwest, 541-689-2000

Final US Fish & Wildlife Klamath Fish Kill Report Confirms Low Flows
as Major Factor in 2002 Lower Klamath Fish Kill
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service today released its much-awaited final
scientific assessment on the underlying causes of the disasterous
Klamath Basin September 2002 fish kill, in which more than 34,000
adult pre-spawning salmon and steelhead perished in the Klamath River.
The report confirms that near-record low flows were indeed a major
factor in those losses.

Average monthly flows from Iron Gate Dam during September 2002 were
the fifth lowest in the period from 1978 to 2002, and the lowest
levels ever seen when combined with higher than average incoming fish
runs. Near record low flows also contributed to the crowding of fish
into the lower river as well as elevated water temperatures, stressing
the fish and creating perfect conditions for an epidemic spread of
diseases (Ich and columnaris) that are always present, but which
normally cannot spread so rapidly nor with such devastating effects.

The September 2002 fish kill was the largest loss of pre-spawning
adult salmon ever recorded in the Klamath River, and one of the worst
fish kills ever seen in this country.

Water flows from the headwaters of the river to below Iron Gate Dam
are controlled entirely by the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Summer
water releases from Iron Gate Dam are frequently only whatever water
is left over after the Bureau of Reclamation first subtracts water
deliveries to Klamath Project irrigators, which can use more than half
of all the water normally flowing from the headwaters during summer
irrigation months. Much of the water released from Iron Gate Dam is
also of poor quality, including agricultural waste water return flows
from the Project.

Iron Gate Dam is at River Mile 192. It is not until the Klamath River
merges with the Trinity River inflow at River Mile 43 that any
significant amount of water is added to the main river from its
tributaries. The primary problem of low flows during September 2002
was thus at Iron Gate Dam. During that same time period, the Trinity
River inflow was among the highest it has been in many years, and at
full "Record of Decision" flows levels.

The flows through Iron Gate Dam were deliberately set unusually low in
2002 by the Bush Administration in order to assure delivery of normal
water allotments to Klamath Irrigation Project irrigators, even though
the basin was still racked with drought, and in spite of the risk to
ESA-listed coho salmon and fall chinook populations which are vitally
important to the lower river fishing-dependent economy.

"The Administration was warned by California Fish and Game Biologists,
by the Tribes' Biologists and by commercial fishermen that flows that
low would lead to disaster, and so they did," commented Glen Spain,
Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), which represents lower river and
coastal salmon fishermen. "This is just a post mortem, but it confirms
what we were telling the Administration all along. You cannot expect
fish to survive in a warm water trickle of what was once a mighty
river."

Immediate economic losses in the lower river fishing-dependent economy
resulting from the fish kill were at least $20 million in 2002 alone,
and since salmon numbers in later years depend on this year's brood
stock, the losses in 2002 will have economic ripple effects for many
years to come that will affect much of the west coast salmon fishery.
Salmon fisheries from Half Moon Bay, California to Florence, Oregon
open or close depending on the strength of Klamath River fall chinook
runs. Nearly 20 percent of that whole run was lost as a result of the
2002 fish kill, and many of the surviving wild adults spawners were
severely weakened, which means that their egg fertility levels were
also likely depressed. Juveniles smolt counts this spring, which were
the progeny of the survivors of 2002, were in fact exceedingly low.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Report confirms the findings of a similar
report by the California Department of Fish and Game, that low flows
in the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam were a major contributing
factor in the fish kill. Low flows also lead inevitably to higher than
normal fish densities as well as higher than optimal temperatures in
the water, which all contributed to the spread of these diseases
according to the Fish and Wildlife Service Report.

Over-appropriation of limited water supplies in the Upper Basin,
primarily for commercial irrigation, have in recent years lead to less
and less water being made available to support downriver fisheries
worth literally billions of dollars to lower river and coastal
economies.

*****

For the Fish and Game Report see: http://sacramento.fws.gov.

For more information on the September 2002 fish kill and a copy of the
prior California Department of Fish and Game Report see:
http://www.klamathbasin.info/fishkill1.htm.

###




On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:46:18 -0800, "Chris HIll"
wrote:

Typical lying from the looney left. Just like all these wannabe political
analysts that know absolutely nothing except how to cut and paste tripe into
their brains and bother folks in an outdoor oriented newsgroup. Take this
a$$wipe for example, he claims the administration killed 30k salmon due to
the agricultural needs of the area. Dig down just one thin layer of
information and we see that this is a Fuc*** reservoir that was built
SPECIFICALLY for the farmer's irrigation. Natural habitat my A$$. Now why
don't you idiot leftists get a clue that the educated public isn't buying
you trash. Have I said enough? Good now if you have something to contribute
to back country discussions go for it.
Chris

I don't know. J. Edgar, Johnson, and
Kennedy all preceded Nixon, so there
was much to question. I'm not sure
what is cause and what is effect.



Yes And may ond deceased grand mother once told me that they did not call the
"Roaring Twenties", the "Roaring Twenties" for nothing. The point being that
politics and politicians have never been totaly innocent (except the current
administration of course) during our history.

Lou T

Mr. Hill, here is one about the San Rafael land swap for ya Yeah,
I've travelled almost every canyon in the Swell, too, so I know these
issues as well. Get your goat?

Peace

Interior disciplines 4 behind proposed San Rafael Swell land swap
Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 12/12/2003 | Robert Gehrke


WASHINGTON -- The Interior Department has disciplined four officials
behind a Utah land swap and reformed its land appraisal process after
an investigation revealed they concealed details that showed the
exchange would have shortchanged taxpayers.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, had singled out the actions of the
attorneys and negotiators behind a proposed land exchange in Utah's
San Rafael Swell, saying they misled Congress and top Interior
officials. He also demanded to know whether the Interior Secretary
Gale Norton considered such behavior acceptable.

"The Department of Interior is responsible for ensuring that we
present accurate facts to the Congress, decision-makers and the
public," Norton's chief of staff, Brian Waidmann, wrote Wednesday in a
reply to Grassley.

In this case, Waidmann wrote, Congress should have been provided with
a clearer picture of the value of land being exchanged. But had
members of Congress or the public read two documents -- the
legislation and the agreement spelling out the swap -- the terms of
the exchange would have been clear.

Waidmann said appropriate personnel action has been taken by the
department but did not elaborate.

The department has also sought to restructure its appraisal process to
insulate appraisers from political pressures and install more checks
on the process.

"I appreciate that the secretary has been responsive to my concerns.
I'm satisfied with the action she's taken," Grassley said. He said the
land exchanges "need more scrutiny to ensure that land valuations are
fair and accurate, and that the taxpayer doesn't get the short end of
the stick."

The Utah land swap was intended to consolidate federal land in the
scenic San Rafael Swell to make it easier for President Bush to
designate the area a national monument.

But the deal was scuttled after Bureau of Land Management appraisers
in Utah told The Associated Press last year that the deal amounted to
a giveaway of as much as $117 million in valuable federal mineral
reserves on land being turned over to the state of Utah.

Last week, a letter from the Office of Special Counsel indicated that
the case had been referred to the Justice Department for possible
prosecution.

The letter cited "evidence of criminal violations" as a grounds for
not releasing a report prepared in response to allegations raised by
BLM appraiser Kent Wilkinson.

But Mary Monahan, a spokeswoman for the office, said this week that
the report in question was the Interior Department's inspector general
report, which has been available for months.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:46:18 -0800, "Chris HIll"
wrote:

Typical lying from the looney left. Just like all these wannabe political
analysts that know absolutely nothing except how to cut and paste tripe into
their brains and bother folks in an outdoor oriented newsgroup.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:46:18 -0800, "Chris HIll" wrote:

Typical lying from the looney left. Just like all these wannabe political
analysts that know absolutely nothing except how to cut and paste tripe into
their brains and bother folks in an outdoor oriented newsgroup. Take this
a$$wipe for example, he claims the administration killed 30k salmon due to
the agricultural needs of the area. Dig down just one thin layer of
information and we see that this is a Fuc*** reservoir that was built
SPECIFICALLY for the farmer's irrigation. Natural habitat my A$$. Now why
don't you idiot leftists get a clue that the educated public isn't buying
you trash. Have I said enough? Good now if you have something to contribute
to back country discussions go for it.
Chris

[..../]

Irony meter

No doubt rec.backcountry is proud to have a know-nothing effwit as its netcop.

"Chris HIll" wrote in message
...
Typical lying from the looney left. Just like all these wannabe political

SNIPPED typical lying from the jackoff, child-molesting, nun-raping, idiot
electing, ill-numerate, snot swallowing, bugger picking, pig marrying, slime
sucking, communist peckerwood biting, seat peeing, whiners of the bed
wetting, dog kicking, Nazi purse snatching, drug addict right wing, 90 pound
weakling, Rush dittohead faction of sewer rat, lay about, ****ants.

Chris, your problem is you don't love love the Constitution.

Dave

On 2 Jan 2004 03:10:01 GMT, "David Snedeker"
wrote:


"Chris HIll" wrote in message
...
Typical lying from the looney left. Just like all these wannabe political

SNIPPED typical lying from the jackoff, child-molesting, nun-raping, idiot
electing, ill-numerate, snot swallowing, bugger picking, pig marrying, slime
sucking, communist peckerwood biting, seat peeing, whiners of the bed
wetting, dog kicking, Nazi purse snatching, drug addict right wing, 90 pound
weakling, Rush dittohead faction of sewer rat, lay about, ****ants.

Chris, your problem is you don't love love the Constitution.

Dave


The Constitution would work just fine if it weren't for a bunch of
tofu sucking Liberals trying to "redefine" it every other week.

Strider

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 04:41:49 GMT, Strider wrote:

On 2 Jan 2004 03:10:01 GMT, "David Snedeker"
wrote:


"Chris HIll" wrote in message
...
Typical lying from the looney left. Just like all these wannabe political

SNIPPED typical lying from the jackoff, child-molesting, nun-raping, idiot
electing, ill-numerate, snot swallowing, bugger picking, pig marrying, slime
sucking, communist peckerwood biting, seat peeing, whiners of the bed
wetting, dog kicking, Nazi purse snatching, drug addict right wing, 90 pound
weakling, Rush dittohead faction of sewer rat, lay about, ****ants.

Chris, your problem is you don't love love the Constitution.

Dave


The Constitution would work just fine if it weren't for a bunch of
tofu sucking Liberals trying to "redefine" it every other week.

Why do you hate America?

/daytripper (go ahead, make a list)