I am having A Day
Aug. 31st, 2007 06:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lagilmanToday has been filled with all sorts of frustrations minor and major, and most of them things I can't do more than file complaints about (including a shipment of wine that seems to have gone AWOL. The company -- a small CA winery -- is deeply abashed and promises to make good with a fresh shipment, but the ARGH level is high).
However, despite the universe's best efforts, I've accomplished a reasonable amount of work, including 1500 words on BLOOD FROM STONE (aka Retrievers 6) and a load of much-needed laundry.
Tonight? More work. Plans for this holiday weekend? A lot more work. Plus an outing to see CASABLANCA on the big screen for the very first time. I'm not sure it will actually improve it any -- it's such an intimate story, seeing it large-scale seems wrong somehow. We'll see. Ah, such an exciting life I lead. I'm sure you're all just fascinated.
And in case anyone cares about life forms other than their own:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge has upheld the government's practice of allowing development to proceed even if it is discovered after a project begins that the work could endanger protected species.
The National Association of Home Builders praised the ruling Friday, saying its members might have had to delay some projects if U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had not agreed with the ''no surprises'' approach to development.
''The vast majority of endangered species exist on private property, and there is no way to protect endangered species unless sufficient incentives are given to private landowners,'' said Duane Desiderio, the trade group's vice president for legal affairs.
The case affects a pair of rules which allow landowners and developers to obtain a permit that lets them off the hook for incidentally killing, injuring or harassing rare animals, and damaging or killing rare plants. Development projects must be accompanied by a plan for addressing protections for the natural places where plants and animals live.
But the government reserves the right to revoke a permit if killing a plant or animal makes it more likely the species will go extinct in the wild.
Environmental groups that had sued the government to overturn the two rules expressed disappointment Friday but said they had not yet decided whether to appeal Sullivan's ruling. On Thursday, he found the two rules consistent with federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act.
Sullivan also wrote that ''it is appropriate for the court to presume'' that the government will protect endangered species, despite issuing 379 permits authorizing the killing of rare plants and animals between 1994 and 2002.
''We're very disappointed,'' said Leeona Klippstein, executive director of the California-based Spirit of the Sage Council, which represents American Indians and environmentalists. ''This means that over 39 million habitat acres will be lost, and over 200 species included in 500 conservation plans will never see recovery.''
The Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Services adopted the ''no surprises'' policy in August 1994, then cemented it in a pair of rules in 1998 and 1999.
After the council and other groups sued, Sullivan agreed in 2004 to halt them for six months while the agencies gathered more public comment. He found the Clinton administration had not given people enough opportunity to weigh in.
In December 2004, the Bush administration reissued the rules, saying the government must be able to give home builders, timber and mining companies and other developers some immunity against unforeseen twists in providing species protections."
----
Me again. I'm all for human rights. But saying that it's up to the government to side with/defend critters rather than builders/developers is saying...well, it's saying you haven't been paying a damn bit of attention recently, is what it's saying. *sighs*
And now a glass of single malt beckons with a come-hither waft of peat and smoke...
However, despite the universe's best efforts, I've accomplished a reasonable amount of work, including 1500 words on BLOOD FROM STONE (aka Retrievers 6) and a load of much-needed laundry.
Tonight? More work. Plans for this holiday weekend? A lot more work. Plus an outing to see CASABLANCA on the big screen for the very first time. I'm not sure it will actually improve it any -- it's such an intimate story, seeing it large-scale seems wrong somehow. We'll see. Ah, such an exciting life I lead. I'm sure you're all just fascinated.
And in case anyone cares about life forms other than their own:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge has upheld the government's practice of allowing development to proceed even if it is discovered after a project begins that the work could endanger protected species.
The National Association of Home Builders praised the ruling Friday, saying its members might have had to delay some projects if U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had not agreed with the ''no surprises'' approach to development.
''The vast majority of endangered species exist on private property, and there is no way to protect endangered species unless sufficient incentives are given to private landowners,'' said Duane Desiderio, the trade group's vice president for legal affairs.
The case affects a pair of rules which allow landowners and developers to obtain a permit that lets them off the hook for incidentally killing, injuring or harassing rare animals, and damaging or killing rare plants. Development projects must be accompanied by a plan for addressing protections for the natural places where plants and animals live.
But the government reserves the right to revoke a permit if killing a plant or animal makes it more likely the species will go extinct in the wild.
Environmental groups that had sued the government to overturn the two rules expressed disappointment Friday but said they had not yet decided whether to appeal Sullivan's ruling. On Thursday, he found the two rules consistent with federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act.
Sullivan also wrote that ''it is appropriate for the court to presume'' that the government will protect endangered species, despite issuing 379 permits authorizing the killing of rare plants and animals between 1994 and 2002.
''We're very disappointed,'' said Leeona Klippstein, executive director of the California-based Spirit of the Sage Council, which represents American Indians and environmentalists. ''This means that over 39 million habitat acres will be lost, and over 200 species included in 500 conservation plans will never see recovery.''
The Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Services adopted the ''no surprises'' policy in August 1994, then cemented it in a pair of rules in 1998 and 1999.
After the council and other groups sued, Sullivan agreed in 2004 to halt them for six months while the agencies gathered more public comment. He found the Clinton administration had not given people enough opportunity to weigh in.
In December 2004, the Bush administration reissued the rules, saying the government must be able to give home builders, timber and mining companies and other developers some immunity against unforeseen twists in providing species protections."
----
Me again. I'm all for human rights. But saying that it's up to the government to side with/defend critters rather than builders/developers is saying...well, it's saying you haven't been paying a damn bit of attention recently, is what it's saying. *sighs*
And now a glass of single malt beckons with a come-hither waft of peat and smoke...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-01 03:40 am (UTC)*scratches head*
Time flies... :D
no subject
Date: 2007-09-01 03:52 am (UTC)*wince*
Date: 2007-09-01 03:49 am (UTC)Judge OKs Rule...endangered species
Date: 2007-09-01 09:07 pm (UTC)Spirit of the Sage Council has led this fight for endangered species since 1996 in the courts, with the help of Eric Glitzenstein - his partners and staff - Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal. We won the first three legal challenges and got some improvements i.e. HCP guidance measures, clarification that a permit could be revoked etc. But I can publicly state, that I am not satisfied with just those things. Especially, if they are without mandates. During the court hearing, Judge Sullivan discussed the issue of the Endangered Species Act having an "exemptions" section (Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits). This is generally what he said "This is where the slippery slope began, back in 1984." He looked at me in the courtroom and said "If you were around then, you would have brought a legal challenge?" I nodded in agreement. Unfortunately, the Sage Council was not formed and I wasn't an activist/conservationist in 1984. We didn't enter into the theater of War on the Wild till 1991. Back in 1984, when the Endangered Species Act was up for reauthorization by Congress, several big D.C. national orgs, along with Congress, allowed this travesty to happen -- gutting protections for endangered species. Then in 1994, the Act was up for reauthorization again (every ten years). Clinton/Babbitt made 10 "user friendly" changes to the Act, without Congress. The changes were made through an announcement, with public notice and comment via the Federal Register. These "user friendly" changes to the Act are also referred to as "landowner incentives". *Note "user friendly" mean friendly to users/industry.
Sage Council sued Secretary Babbitt for failing to provide public notice and comment on the "No Surprises" guarantee (policy) to landowners. Govt agreed and issued the No Surprises rule. Over 800 scientists, conservationist, tribes and others provided comments that opposed the use of No Surprises Rule in the Endangered Species Act. 200 Scientists, in a joint letter, found that the Rule would "push endangered species towards extinction..." and that "Nature is full of surprises." Regardless of the scientists warnings, Secretary Babbitt approved the No Surprises Rule, that it was desired by landowners to have this incentive. *Note - landowners are nonfederal landowners - States, Counties, Cities, Water Districts and Timber, Development, Mining industries (users or takers).
Sage Council sued Babbitt again for approving the No Surprises Rule. During the lawsuit, the Clinton Administration created a Permit Revocation Rule (PRR). This was done to effect our legal challenge to the No Surprises Rule. So, we sued on No Surprises and the PRR. Judge found that the PRR was intertwined with No Surprises and told the govt to go back and revise the rules to consider and explain how the revised Rules would benefit endangered species. The govt didn't want to, so they appealed the decision and motioned the Court to prevent the Sage Council from legally challenging the revised Rules. Judge ruled against the govt and allowed Sage Council to continue our legal challenge to the revised Rules. During this time (more than 6 mos), the govt wasn't allowed to give No Surprises guarantees to those who wanted to kill endangered species and destroy habitat for development, logging etc.
continued
continued Judge OKs Rule...
Date: 2007-09-01 09:10 pm (UTC)(Section 10 exemption clause). Judge Sullivan basically believes that the exemption clause only requires the survival/existence of the species. Whereas, other sections of the Endangered Species Act require conservation/recovery (increase in numbers). Therefore, Judge Sullivan's logic (or lack of) is that it doesn't matter if No Surprises guarantees to takers/killers (permit holders) threatens recovery of endangered species, because the exemption section doesn't require recovery.
What I'd like all of the readers to consider is this - Sage Council is a small charity. We don't have a lot of funding or paid staff. We took on this huge and important battle for endangered species because 1. It is needed, and 2. The big budgeted D.C. groups and others, with $millions of funding annually, were doing NOTHING to stop this attack on the Endangered Species Act. As a matter of fact, Environmental Defense, Defenders of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy,Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, Endangered Species Coalition are supporting "Landowner incentives." Just like in 1984, these groups in 2007 are rolling over to industry and conceding to their desires to receive assurances of Incidental Take Permits (License to Kill).
If you, the public, want the Sage Council to continue to fight for endangered species then please send a donation. We still owe over $20,000. to Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal. If we do appeal this horrible court decision by Judge Sullivan, we will need to raise at least another $20,000. Please send your donations to...
Spirit of the Sage Council
439 Westwood SC #144, Fayetteville, NC 28315
Please make your check payable to - The Habitat Trust for Wildlife
They are our 501c3 fiscal sponsor (Tax ID# 04-3637770)
Please write Sage Council on the memo area of your check
You can also donate on PayPal - send to leeona@earthlink.net (The Habitat Trust) We are also listed on Changes and Network for Good.
Thank you for caring about our conservation work and the recovery of endangered species.
Leeona Klippstein, Executive Director
Spirit of the Sage Council
www.myspace.com/sagecouncil www.sagecouncil.com
Second Life - SongbirdClone Writer