Sunta

He is fantastic, but my concern is that Americans are far too backwards/racist to put a Black or female president into office, especially in the red states. Racism is alive and well in the US, and it's the elephant in the room. I would absolutely love to have him as president, but I am worried that if he or Hillary go up against a moderate Republican like McCain, the Dems won't have a chance of winning because of sexism and racism being so prevelant in the United States. And before anyone starts arguing with me, take a trip to the south where they honor the first Grand Wizard of the KKK with statues of him and and state parks dedicated to him all over the damn place. And that's just one small example of the rampant racism I'm talking about. That being said, I hope he runs anyway because it would be really great times ahead if he was our president. I just love him.

Hello, I had a situation last night that is really making me question myself. I never thought of myself as being an emotional eater, and still don't think I am. I would never eat when I got depressed or angry pre-band. Post band, I'm finding that the hunger control is all I need to be successful at weight loss. So I don't know if this issue I'm about to explain is "emotional eating" or what it is. Here's what happened: Last night, my friend came over to my house and she brought with her three slices of cake for her, me and my husband. All were chocolate, but they had different frostings. She said we could all share the slices. I went upstairs to take a shower, and said "when I come down, let's cut all the slices into three pieces so we can all have some of each", and they agreed. I also said "don't start eating the cake without me!" I got my shower and came downstairs, and my husband had started eating the cake with whipped cream icing. I asked him if I could have some and he handed me the slice. I took one bite and it was really good, so I went to take a second bite, and he goes "HEY! that's MY cake! Give it back!" and I said "What do you mean it's your cake? We're supposed to be sharing!" and I ate the second bite. At that point my friend said "Dude! That's Dave's piece! He picked that one!" and they grabbed it away from me. To make a long story short, it made me feel embarrassed, humiliated, and angry. I felt like they were saying I was a pig for wanting some of "his" cake (but we were supposed to be sharing it anyway). I got so angry about it, I couldn't sleep all night and am still enraged about it today! Do I need therapy? Let me explain a few other things: I often go way out of my way to make homemade food for them, spending hours shopping, peeling, chopping, and cooking to make delicious meals from scratch. I never, ever, ever, would, or ever have, denied someone any of "my" food. I always share and consider sharing to show my love to the person I'm sharing with. I often buy my husband special foods I know he would love just for him. I go out of my way to do this for him on a regular basis. So I've come to realize today that to me, food equals love. To deny me the pleasure of sharing your food means you do not love me. And to reject my food that I offer you means the same thing. I get angry when people reject food I have made and take it as a personal affront. I think they should take some just to be polite. Does anyone else feel the same way? Am I off my rocker? I'd love to hear from anyone with similar feelings or experiences.

You must be Italian! Yes, indeed! I am Italian!!! Good call! I find that my Italian friends understand me when it comes to this issue (though I've not articulated it, or even realized it, to this extent, until today.) and we will often talk about how we can't stand it when someone doesn't like to try different, new foods and when we meet someone who doesn't love to eat and cook, how we don't understand it. But today I realized how powerful this feeling is, and how much it defines me. My friends know me as an excellent cook, and often beg me to make them certain dishes. It's just part of me. It must be a cultural thing too.

Hi, I want to share my protocal for avoiding PBing for anyone who has a problem with it. Before implementing this system, I was PBing anywhere from 1-2 times per week (and sometimes even twice in one day!). Since following this system, I have not PB'd in over four weeks! By following 3 very simple rules, I seemed to have found my "magic bullet" for avoiding PB's: 1. liquids only for Breakfast. NO solids. I usually have a Protein shake called "Alive" which is a whole food Multivitamin and has 22 grams of Protein when made with milk. 2. "Soft" or "easy" lunch at around 3:00pm, in tiny tiny bites and chewed forever. I usually eat chili, lentils, cottage cheese/fruit, Soup, etc. Anything that is personally easy for me to eat. Yesterday I had soft cooked homemade ravioli and tender pork. Whatever is easy for you to eat. 3. Every night: one to two glasses of wine before dinner. This works like a charm. It opens everything up and relaxes the system so dinner goes down well. I eat whatever I want for dinner but always make sure to take small bites and chew very well. That's it! Let me know if you give it a try. It's been a great plan for me. Good luck!

HELLO........ANYONE READING THIS?????? THERE ARE MOLECULES OUT THERE THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO MULTIPLY YOUR OWN STEM CELLS, SO THEREFORE, IF YOU HAVE PARKINSON'S, STROKE ETC............YOU CAN MULTIPLY YOUR OWN STEM CELLS AND REVERSE YOUR OWN CONDITIONS. What? Where is the scientific evidence/research/news articles/anything to back up this claim???

Those women may have lost 350 pounds combined, but within 5 years, they will gain it all back, and Rosie and Joy take that to the bank.

It isnt that I dont want the research to happen at all, I just dont want an unborn baby used to support this. Do the people here who do not support stem cell research (not from amniotic fluid) think that the embryos being used would ever have grown into a baby? If you think the fact that they would never have been viable babies is not important, do you think it's better to discard them in the trash than utilize them for life-saving procedures on real human beings? I just don't understand the opposition.

No other comments on how wonderful stem cell research is when it's from amniotic Fluid, not an embryo? Is there only interest in this potentially life-saving issue when it's being used to bash Christians? Uh... I just read the article about it today. Can you give us a chance? My first thought about it was "thank goodness!!!" because now, maybe, people with chronic and debilitating illnesses will have a chance to increase their quality of life without being blocked at every turn by people who would, it seems, rather see them suffer. My concern is completely focused on the issue of the patients suffering with crippling diseases, and I have zero interest in "bashing" Christians just for the sake of it. Speaking for myself I put my money where my mouth is by participating in letter-writing campaigns, and charitable giving to the issues that concern me, including this one. I can't speak for others, but my guess is that those who support stem-cell research care deeply about sick patient's quality of life and have little concern for getting on a soap box without standing behind their opinions by taking direct action. I'm definitely extremely excited and bolstered by this new research into stem cells and I pray that more funding will be allocated to this new avenue, especially if there is no way people can attempt to block it on "moral" grounds. My bet is that instead of stem-cell supporters wanting to bash Christians, it's the anti-stem cell Christians who secretly feel schadenfreude at seeing people with horrible illnesses. I can't imagine any other reason why someone would deny a living person a chance for a cure in order to save tissue that would never be a viable baby.

Waaaaaay too much information, Sunta.....LOL I know! Even the most liberal/liberated person like me is totally grossed out by that description. Little too graphic for my taste, but hey, when one is frantically researching the latest Gay animal news, who's thinking about censorship? HAHAHAHAH!

Animals don't choose to be homosexual, just humans. Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages. Bisexuality is the norm among male chimps (check out Jane Goodall's books). Effectively a male chimp forms a long-term partnership with another male (which includes sex at times). When the higher-ranking of the pair challenges for leadership of the troupe, the backing of sidekick is essential. If successful, they then become nos 1 and 2 respectively in the pecking order of the troupe for access to the females, as well as food etc. But their closest relationship is with each other. Among swans and flamingos there have been cases of two females living together using sexual contact with males purely to reproduce. Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own. Male lions also have sex with each other to ensure loyalty and bonding. Five percent of geese and ducks are homosexual. Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species and is well documented for 500 of them.

I'm not particularily fond of jazz The funny thing is, I'm not either! Actually I would say I dislike it. But you still must go to Preservation Hall. It gave me a new understanding of jazz and the music is so much a part of NO's history. It's really a beautiful experience. Everyone was awed by it and you could have heard a pin drop. It's a tiny, intimate space, and very historic. You'll come away with a new appreciation.

Oooooh I love New Orleans sooo much! It was one of my best vacations ever. My number one pick for "must see" is Preservation Hall. It's a magical feeling listening to jazz there. Nothing like it. Second would be the amazing statuary in their cemetaries there. We have framed some of the wonderful eerie pictures we got of the spectacular victorian statuary. Third is definitely the food. It's difficult to get a bad meal there. An oyster po' boy is a must. One word of advice: in the French Quarter they are psycho about not letting people use their bathrooms unless you're a customer. They're not afraid to assault people if you try to sneak in, too. Make sure you "go" before you head out for an evening! That's the one thing that marred my vacation: a crazy restaurant manager practically beat me up (pushed me and shoved me) just because I was heading toward the bathroom because I had to go really really badly. They are very strict about that. Other than that, NO is gorgeous and wonderful. Have fun!

Hi all, I received this message in my private messages box. It's incoherant but kind of creepy. Does anyone know how to block someone from PMing? If anyone wants to yell at me regarding a post, and include things about police beating me up and placing me in a hole in the ground, please do it on the public message board. Thanks. Here's the PM: you are a fool!!! wow you know the complete history of every one of them if you dont like him move far far far away to a place that if to said that that the police would come take you away and your family and beat you and put you in a hole and not feed you this is the greatest country in the world.!!!!!dont let the door hit you on the way out.:angry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

"So you're an atheist? Well what do you plan to do on judgement day?" Come party with me! WOO-HOOO!

Wait, wait, wait. I've been off of this thread for awhile. Does anyone here, and I mean anyone, honestly think that there has been a president in history who has NOT had affairs/a mistress/sex with other people than his wife??? Do you honestly think that a president's sex life has anything whatsoever to do with his ability to govern the country? Now, if you're tempted to revert back to the statement "But he LIED", do you honestly think that Bill Clinton, or any president, or most men, have not at some point in time lied about sexual activity??? Do you honestly think that lying about your personal private sex life has anything whatsoever to do with governing the country? I can't even believe that after all these years, people defend George Bush by discussing Bill Clinton's private sex life! It's outrageous! It irrelevant to the discussion at hand! For the record: if George Bush had 5,000 girlfriends and 10,000 boyfriends and all of them had an orgy in the oval office every night, it would have nothing to do with his horrible legacy of governing the country. Nothing. Does your sex life impact your ability to do YOUR job?

Too many people when they use the word "Christians" actually mean the Christian Right Political Movement And I am one of those people. Thank you for clarifying so succinctly what I have failed to fully express in my posts.

I don't sit around thinking all Muslims are bad b/c some "Muslims" decided to knock down the twin towers. I chose not to stereotype or prejudice a whole group. Instead I took a class called Topics in Islam and educated myself. Why remain ignorant if you don't have too? I don't judge all white men based off of George Bush or all black women based off of Condolezza Rice. Did you know all black people can't dance and all asians don't know martial arts? Everytime Americans take a few steps up, so fool knocks us back more. And I don't sit around thinking all Christians are bad either. I am talking about a select group of conservative Christians. I never said "all Christians are bad". My statement "It gives me hope that not all Christians are evil" was tongue in cheek. I am very, very well aware that not all Black people can dance and that not all Asians know martial arts. Just as I am well aware that not all Christians are bad people. If you're trying to insinuate that I am bigoted in general, I promise that my life, if scrutinized, would should a huge amount of diversity, both personally and in the people close to me. Yes, I do have close friends (and my best girlfriend) who are Christian and very religious, although they are not the group I am referring to. In fact, they absolutely agree with me about fundamentalist, conservative Christians.

Do you not see what you are doing? Sounds like a bunch of stereotyping and prejudging. It's not stereotyping, because it's true. Instead of replacing the word "Christian" with types of races, try replacing it with "Members of the KKK" or "terrorists". Then it makes sense. The reason some (not all) Christians are mean, bigoted, and disgraceful human beings is because they DO discriminate against others, are bigoted, and are disgracful. They treat Gays with hatred and disgust, they brainwash children, they set up camps to train children to hate other religions (ever see "Jesus Camp"???), and to top it off, they're huge hypocrites! (Pastor Ted for example). No one is saying that ALL Christians are like that, but many conservative ones are, for sure. It's a fact that they discriminate and hate Gays. It's a fact that they use brainwashing techniques on their kids. It's a fact that they purposely teach young girls that they should be stay at home moms, instead of telling them they can be and do anything that want. It is a fact that they contribute to hate crimes against Gays by teaching people that being Gay is hateful. It is a fact that they contribute to the high incidence of suicide among Gay youth. That IS disgraceful!!! I have heard them on the radio and I have seen them on television. No one can tell me they don't do these things, because I've seen it with my own eyes. Therefore, I have no problem with Laurend's statement.

I'm also a former conservative Christian who one day decided to think for myself and figure out what I think is important about what Jesus said. If I hadn't been raised a Christian, I would be wary of getting into it because of all the wrong done by those few but vocal attention whores of Christianity. One problem is that the majority of Christians are quietly living their lives as best they can in Jesus' path and are not vocal. We don't feel it is our job to wear our religion on our sleeve and posture. Perhaps that's something we mainline/liberal Christians need to work on but I'm not sure it's in our nature. Finally! A voice of reason! Thank goodness there are people out there like you. Maybe a way you can work on being more vocal is to get your viewpoint out there more often. I like hearing from people with your viewpoint. It gives me hope that not all Christians are (what I view as) evil.

Or no document, whichever they prefer. Oh yes, yes. Absolutely!

Honestly, I can't even believe this is a controversy. It's a right under our constitution to have RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Things like this make me sick. People should be able to be sworn in under whatever religious document they want to be sworn in under.

Green, I highly recommend the Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth" if you have not yet seen it. It is excellent and frightening. Secondly, check out this article on the Canadian ice shelf that was lost recently: Ancient ice shelf breaks free from Canadian Arctic POSTED: 11:23 a.m. EST, January 4, 2007 Story Highlights • Scientist: "Disturbing event" shows "we are crossing climate thresholds" • Researchers using satellite images discovered 2005 event • Collapse picked up by earthquake monitors 155 miles away TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said. The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north. Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake. (Watch the satellite images that clued in ice watchers) Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw. "This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday. In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said. The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometers (155 miles) away picked up tremors from it. The Ayles Ice Shelf, roughly 66 square kilometers (25 square miles) in area, was one of six major ice shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic. Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor. "It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906. "We aren't able to connect all of the dots ... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role." Laurie Weir, who monitors ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, was poring over satellite images in 2005 when she noticed that the shelf had split and separated. Weir notified Luke Copland, head of the new global ice lab at the University of Ottawa, who initiated an effort to find out what happened. Using U.S. and Canadian satellite images, as well as data from seismic monitors, Copland discovered that the ice shelf collapsed in the early afternoon of August 13, 2005. "What surprised us was how quickly it happened," Copland said. "It's pretty alarming. "Even 10 years ago scientists assumed that when global warming changes occur that it would happen gradually so that perhaps we expected these ice shelves just to melt away quite slowly, but the big surprise is that for one they are going, but secondly that when they do go, they just go suddenly, it's all at once, in a span of an hour." Within days, the floating ice shelf had drifted a few miles (kilometers) offshore. It traveled west for 50 kilometers (31 miles) until it finally froze into the sea ice in the early winter. The Canadian ice shelves are packed with ancient ice that dates back over 3,000 years. They float on the sea but are connected to land. Derek Mueller, a polar researcher with Vincent's team, said the ice shelves get weaker and weaker as the temperature rises. He visited Ellesmere's Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in 2002 and noticed it had cracked in half. "We're losing our ice shelves, and this a feature of the landscape that is in danger of disappearing altogether from Canada," Mueller said. "In the global perspective Antarctica has many ice shelves bigger than this one, but then there is the idea that these are indicators of climate change." The spring thaw may bring another concern as the warming temperatures could release the ice shelf from its Arctic grip. Prevailing winds could then send the ice island southwards, deep into the Beaufort Sea. "Over the next few years this ice island could drift into populated shipping routes," Weir said. "There's significant oil and gas development in this region as well, so we'll have to keep monitoring its location over the next few years." Thirdly, you have every right to speak up about the US administration, because it directly impacts your life and the life of all Canadians, and indeed, the whole planet. The US is certainly the country that's ruining the global environment and has certainly contributed to the loss of these ice shelves in Canada and everywhere else. It's just all really scary. Now excuse me while I go plan my picnic outside for Saturday. It's going to be 67 degrees, even though it's January.

Try this: 1. Go on liquids for two days. 2. While on liquids, drink milk with honey and a teaspoon of tumeric stirred in twice a day (morning and night). In addition, take 2 ounces of aloe vera morning and evening. 3. After your two days are over, follow this rountine: - Protien shake or other liquid in the morning, every morning. NO SOLIDS! - Soft/easy lunch in TINY TINY TINY bites, chewed to death. Chili, Soup, whatever is an "easy" food for you. - One to two glasses of wine before dinner. Normal dinner, small bites chewed well. Since adopting these guidelines I went from throwing up 1-2 times a week to over four weeks with no vomiting. Best of luck.

Carlene: Don't you find that most youngsters like to jump in, make a short concise statement that sounds credible enough, and then jump back out again without explaining how or why they came to that conculsion? They don't seem to enjoy a good argument. I think that it may be due to the fact that they've accepted certain things that they've read or heard because they like the sound of them. Life experiences... that's the answer for old ladies like us. Oh yeah, and knowledge. Is this referring to my original post? I know that I haven't been on this thread lately, but that's because I've been busy on the overpopulation thread. Ok, since you want more facts, argument, and debate as to why I feel Bush is the worst US president in history, let's begin simply, with the environment: (As taken from articles by scientists and environmental watchdog groups I have compiled): Oil and Gas Drilling OIL DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC REFUGE America's Arctic is threatened by the Bush administration's extensive oil and gas leasing agenda, which would result in extensive oil drilling in the long-protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as across the rest of Alaska's North Slope. President Bush admitted in his 2006 State of the Union address that “America is addicted to oil” and recognized the pressing need for renewable sources of energy. Yet his administration, the oil lobby, and their friends in Congress are still pushing an energy policy that would forever damage the Arctic Refuge and do nothing to lessen America’s addiction to oil. Although data released in July 2005 by the administration's own Department of Energy show that drilling the refuge’s 1.5 million-acre coastal plain would reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline by only about a penny in 20 years, the administration continues to push for drilling. This administration has a history of changing science to suit their needs. For example, in March 2002, when the U.S. Geological Survey issued a report on the harmful effects drilling would have on caribou and other wildlife, the administration directed other USGS employees to produce a different forecast within 10 days. For the Bush administration, sound science is science that sounds good to them. This year, due to mounting pressure from the White House, Congress is again in danger of passing a budget that would implement the administration's Arctic Refuge plan. While Arctic Refuge drilling language was not included in the FY 2007 House budget resolution, the Senate’s budget resolution does include such a provision. A reconciliation of the House and Senate versions, if it occurs, would force members of Congress to choose between the joint interests of Big Oil and President Bush, versus real energy solutions and the protection of a natural treasure belonging to all Americans. (Eleanor Huffines, 907-272-9453; Leslie Catherwood, 202-454-2524) DRILLING IN THE WESTERN ARCTIC AND ARCTIC OCEAN America's Arctic is endangered by the Bush administration's full-scale oil and gas leasing plans, which would result in development across virtually the entire length and width of the Alaska's North Slope, both on- and offshore. While continuing the relentless push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, the administration has made more than 18 million acres on Alaska's North Slope and Arctic Ocean available to oil companies for leasing, simultaneously weakening the already inadequate environmental safeguards. Determined to lease every single acre, the administration is now proposing to allow drilling in sensitive lands and waters that had previously been protected for wildlife and native hunting. For example, Congress and three secretaries of the Interior have deemed the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area worthy of protection until now. Even former Secretary of the Interior James Watt recognized the lake’s biological and cultural importance by closing the area north of Teshekpuk Lake to leasing. The ecological integrity of the America's Arctic is at serious risk from unplanned, piecemeal, and damaging development. Alaska's North Slope is our nation's only Arctic ecosystem. A balanced approach would give wilderness protection to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and permanent protection for the most biologically and culturally important areas of NPRA and the Arctic Ocean while maximizing oil and gas potential in the central Arctic around Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere in the petroleum reserve. In all cases, wherever exploration and development proceed, they must be carried out under strict environmental standards, including those related to operations, cleanup, and restoration. (Eleanor Huffines, 907-272-9453) ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 PANDERS TO OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the "Energy Policy Act of 2005". Although the bill will do little to bring down the price of oil and gas, or encourage the more efficient use of energy and the development of new, clean technologies, the bill does provide a host of benefits to the oil and gas industry, including exempting oil and gas projects on public lands and national forests from key provisions of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. In the meantime, the BLM has issued a record number of drilling permits on public lands, more than 7,000, and continues to issue new leases on tens of thousands of acres of lands proposed for wilderness designation. (Dave Alberswerth, 202-429-2695) PUSHING OIL AND GAS LEASING IN PROPOSED WILDERNESS AREAS Since its controversial April 2003 "no new wilderness" agreement with the state of Utah, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management repeatedly has leased spectacular lands in Utah and Colorado that have been proposed for wilderness designation in congressional legislation. Conservationists have protested the leasing of these areas because if development occurs, the lands no longer would be eligible for the National Wilderness Preservation System. In total, more than 67,000 acres of citizen's proposed wilderness in Colorado and 190,000 acres in Utah have been offered for auction since April 2003. (Steve Smith, 303-650-5818 x106; Dave Alberswerth, 202-429-2695) YUKON FLATS REFUGE PLANS TO TRADE OUT LANDS FOR OIL DEVELOPMENT In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Doyon, Limited, an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporation, reached an initial agreement regarding a substantial land exchange to allow oil and gas activities on what is now land within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. The exchange would grant Doyon full title to 110,000 acres and subsurface title to another 97,000 acres of refuge land that was recommended by the agency for wilderness designation in the 1980s. In return, FWS says that it would receive title to approximately 150,000 acres of Doyon lands in the first phase of the project. Doyon has plans to explore and drill for oil and gas on the lands, and FWS would have the potential to acquire additional lands if oil and gas development occurs using an oil production royalty. Covering 11 million acres, Yukon Flats is the third-largest refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is located in east-central Alaska, near Fairbanks, and is surrounded by the Brooks Range to the north, and the White Mountains to the south. Nine rural villages are within or adjacent to this refuge. Considered one of North America’s greatest waterfowl breeding areas, the refuge hosts millions of migrating waterfowl in the summer, including more than 1.2 million ducks. The 60,000 canvasback ducks comprise more than 75 percent of the Alaska breeding population. Yukon River salmon also migrate through, with some staying to spawn in the refuge. The refuge is also home to Dall sheep, bears, moose, wolves, wolverines, other furbearers, caribou, and other migratory birds. The Yukon Flats Refuge was established to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity; to fulfill treaty obligations; to provide for continued subsistence uses; and to ensure necessary water quality and quantity. Drilling would open the refuge and Beaver Creek, designated a Wild River under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, to dangerous pollutants that threaten wildlife, plants, and a native subsistence way of life. Wilderness values and the visitor experience would also be irreparably harmed by oil development. The agency is beginning to develop an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze effects of the proposed land exchange. (Nicole Whittington Evans, 907-272-9453) PROPOSED DRILLING IN LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST The U.S. Forest Service considered opening 767,000 acres of Los Padres National Forest on California's central coast to oil and gas development but, due to strong opposition, agreed not to lease 93 percent of the land and to avoid disturbing roadless acreage. The 52,000 acres that will be leased is in Santa Barbara's backyard and is some of the state's most untamed land. The area provides habitat for 20 threatened and endangered species, including the California condor. It also serves as an important watershed for the southern and central coasts and offers popular recreation opportunities to those living in metropolitan Los Angeles. (Dan Smuts, 415-561-6641) National Wildlife Refuges SHORT-CHANGING OUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES America's National Wildlife Refuge System plays a key role in protecting our nation's wildlife resources. The system is comprised of 545 individual refuges located across the country, each one protecting critical habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife. Millions of people visit wildlife refuges each year. Despite Americans’ widespread appreciation for wildlife refuges, the Refuge System suffers from severe under-funding. While President Bush lobbies to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling, the vast majority of our other refuges confront a growing backlog of maintenance projects. The president's most recent budget proposal would only perpetuate this problem. The 2007 presidential budget would cut Operations and Maintenance for the Refuge System by $11 million. Due to inflation, salary requirements, and other needs, the Refuge System requires an annual increase of approximately $16 million just to stay level. Our Refuge System deserves adequate funding to support visitor infrastructure, staff, and wildlife conservation. With more than $270 million in unaddressed hurricane damages to dozens of Gulf Coast refuges and nearly 200 completely unstaffed refuges, the system is simply not getting the funds it needs. Below are examples of the problems facing these sanctuaries: * Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana: This refuge was forced to close after Hurricane Rita deposited massive amounts of hazardous debris and demolished five of Sabine’s eight buildings. The refuge lacks funding for habitat stabilization, monitoring, and hazardous materials clean-up. Prior to the hurricane, 250,000 people visited this refuge annually, generating $1 million in local tax revenue. * Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia: The maintenance backlog is so severe that volunteers are taking matters into their own hands and investing their time and energy to manage this refuge. However, the very building that serves as the volunteer headquarters is deteriorating. Its decks and stairways are rotting, there are no smoke detectors, and there is a desperate need for plumbing and electrical work. * Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Florida: This refuge attracts more than 36 million visitors annually, yet lacks the funds to support the appropriate number of staff. The refuge had to eliminate three positions to keep the visitor’s center operating and must close the visitor's center from Friday through Sunday. * Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah: Major flooding during the 1980s and 1990s damaged water control structures that are necessary to maintain the migratory bird population. The refuge still lacks the money to rebuild these structures, endangering thousands of birds. IGNORING SCIENCE IN THE KLAMATH BASIN Often referred to as "the Everglades of the West," the Klamath Basin is a vital link along the Pacific Flyway and is critical to salmon and many other fish. Fierce competition for the region's limited water, along with a series of dry years, has led to a showdown between agricultural interests and tribes and commercial fishing fleets. In 2002, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation implemented a water allocation plan that was heavily slanted towards providing irrigation water for agriculture at the expense of fish, wildlife, and the refuges. The result? More than 60,000 Klamath River salmon died the next fall due largely to inadequate flows in the river. In addition, the basin's six national wildlife refuges—and the bald eagles, waterfowl, and endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers that inhabit them—have suffered greatly from agricultural water diversions. The refuges' wetlands are bone-dry, and their lakes are shrinking. In March 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service recommended that four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River install fish ladders and turbine screens as a condition of getting a new operating license. While these recommendations, if adopted, could improve the salmon population in the Klamath Basin, they are far from a complete solution to the Klamath Basin water crises. The dams have not yet been approved for re-licensing, and fish ladders and turbine screens have not been installed. It is possible that PacifiCorp, the dam owners, may opt for dam removal rather than expensive fish passage mitigation. Regardless, the real answer for the Klamath Basin and its refuges is a reduction in water demand. Unfortunately, neither the Bush administration nor Congress has come up with measures to achieve that. (Leslie Catherwood, 202-454-2524) >> More BORDER PATROL ACTIVITES CAUSE IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO WILDLIFE REFUGES The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge contains the largest and most pristine wilderness managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the lower 48 states. The refuge harbors as many as 391 plant species and more than 300 kinds of wildlife. While there are several activities that damage the refuge, none is more harmful to the refuge's wilderness than border law enforcement. Both the massive influx of undocumented aliens (UDAs) crossing the international border from Mexico and the U.S. Border Patrol's attempts to stop UDAs have created hundreds of miles of illegal roads in the wilderness. An estimated 2.5 million pounds of garbage is scattered throughout Cabeza Prieta’s broad valleys and desert arroyos every year, according to the refuge manager, Roger Di Rosa. Yet a recent management plan released by the FWS fails to address any of these serious border issues. In addition to Cabeza Prieta, eight other refuges adjoin the Mexican border, for a total of 153 miles of U.S.-Mexico border within our National Wildlife Refuge System. More than 200 miles of illegal roads form a phantom highway system on the Cabeza Prieta Refuge, and many more illegal roads encroach upon the other wild areas along the Mexican border. One part of the solution is to construct a vehicle barrier along the border, such as the one built by the National Park Service at Organ Pipe National Monument. In addition, more immediate measures are necessary to protect the most sensitive areas of the refuge. One example: a build-up of technology along the border to intercept UDAs before they cross into the refuges. NAVY'S AIRCRAFT LANDING FIELD JEAPORDIZES REFUGE In September 2003, the Navy proposed building an Outlying Landing Field five miles from the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in eastern North Carolina, posing a grave threat to the thousands of migrating birds that depend on the Refuge. Retired Colonel Jeffery J. Short, former bird strike team leader, dubbed the Refuge "the worst place" to build the airfield. Given the number and size of the water fowl, a potential collision, rated the highest likelihood possible by the Bird Avoidance Model, is hazardous for both the pilots and the birds. Moreover, the Navy has admitted that it would use both lethal and non-lethal methods to control the bird population, canceling out the efforts of the Refuge to ensure a habitat for the birds. >> More on Pocosin Lakes NWR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES IN ALASKA The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has begun a process to revise the Comprehensive Conservation Plans, or the overall management plans, for all wildlife refuges in the nation, including the 16 in Alaska. Encompassing more than 75 million acres, Alaska’s refuges contain some of the most prized fish, wildlife, and wilderness values in the entire refuge system, and it is imperative that these sanctuaries be managed in such a way as to protect these incomparable resources. Alaska’s refuges host great herds of caribou; muskox; walrus; harbor seals; sea otters; polar, black and brown bears; Dall sheep; moose; wolves; and wolverine, among other mammal species; world-renowned fisheries resources, that include five species of Pacific salmon; and millions of migratory birds. The many bird species that nest and/or migrate through these refuges include emperor geese, Steller’s eiders, tundra swans, peregrine falcons, red-throated loons, and canvasback ducks. Approximately 53 million acres (69.7 percent) of Alaska refuge lands are wild enough to be eligible for the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), and so far more than 18 million acres have been made part of that system In spite of the great potential to add refuge acreage in Alaska to the NWPS, the Bush administration has refused to review wilderness lands or include wilderness recommendations in the revision process. Nor has this administration forwarded previous wilderness recommendations to Congress for consideration. Additionally, the administration has adopted an “open until closed” approach to off-road vehicle use on Alaska’s refuges, which threatens wilderness. In early 2006, the Fish and Wildlife Service completed its first revised CCP in Alaska, covering the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof Refuges. Kodiak, Togiak, and Kenai are next in line. To keep track of the CCP’s in Alaska, you can go to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Alaska Region Web site: http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/planning/plans.htm. Please refer to the following map to locate all of Alaska’s refuges. National Forests WEAKENING SAFEGUARDS FOR ROADLESS AREAS On May 13, 2005, the Bush administration repealed the popular Roadless Area Conservation Rule and replaced it with a voluntary state petition process. Under the new scheme, governors would have to petition the U.S. Forest Service if they wanted the rule to apply to the forests in their states—but with no assurance that the federal government would even accept their petitions. The original rule, adopted in 2001, protected 58.5 million acres of roadless national forest land, located in 38 states. The policy enjoys overwhelming public support. (A record-breaking 1.6 million comments were submitted during preparation of this rule between 1999 and 2000, and the vast majority urged strong protection of these undeveloped lands. More than a million more have been submitted during subsequent comment periods of the Roadless Rule.) In December 2002 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the rule, but the Bush administration has continued seeking ways to eviscerate it. In December 2003, the administration exempted the Tongass National Forest's 9.3 million roadless acres from the rule. However, there have been several challenges to the Bush administration's roadless repeal. On August 30, 2005, the state of Oregon and the attorneys general from New Mexico and California challenged the administration’s repeal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Maine, Washington, and Montana filed amicus briefs in this case. On October 6, twenty conservation groups filed a lawsuit, which was joined with the states’. On October 11, conservation organizations from across the country announced a citizens' petition drive asking the government to reinstate the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The petition, with 250,000 signatures, was filed on March 1, 2006, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, which allows citizens to request that the government issue, amend, or revoke federal rules. (Mike Anderson, 206-624-6430; Michael Francis, 202-429-2662) >> More FIRE POLICY THREATENS ENVIRONMENT In November 2003 Congress passed the "Healthy Forests Restoration Act," thereby enacting much of the president's package (which he called "the Healthy Forests Initiative"). Instead of focusing on thinning areas near homes and communities, the administration pushed through sweeping exemptions from environmental review for logging projects in remote forests. Even though President Bush has used the threat of wildfire to waive environmental standards for logging, when it comes to actually funding community protection efforts, the money is most definitely not where his mouth is. Bush has repeatedly proposed deep cuts to vital programs that put money where it is needed most: in and around communities. In 2006 he proposed cutting state fire assistance by $23 million (almost 30 percent) from the current state fire assistance program, bringing it down to $56 million. This program provides technical and financial assistance to states for grants and agreements with communities to implement fire protection activities, including the removal of hazardous fuels, fire prevention campaigns, personnel training, equipment availability and FIREWISE. (Tom Fry, 303-650-5818 x 110; Greg Aplet, 303-650-5818 x 104) >> More REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In June 2003, the Bush administration changed federal regulations to expand the discretion of national forest managers to skip environmental analysis and public input on smaller logging sales, mining projects, and other activities proposed for roadless areas and other environmentally sensitive lands. Logging companies were allowed to carry out their plans before citizens have any opportunity to object. However, in September 2005, the federal district court for the Eastern District of California ruled against the administration's attempt to cut the public out of the process. Under the ruling, the Forest Service must allow 30 days to receive public comments and up to 105 additional days for the appeals process, restoring the concept of democracy to national forest management. (Michael Francis, 202-429-2662; Mike Anderson, 206-624-6430) NEW NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS PUT CLEAN WATER, WILDLIFE AT RISK For decades, management of the 191 million acres in our national forests has put far too much emphasis on logging. The results included extensive erosion (leading to mudslides and water pollution), damage to fish and wildlife habitat, destruction of scenery, and billions of dollars of taxpayer losses (since the receipts rarely cover the government's costs). An independent committee of distinguished scientists led a review of this approach. After three years of scientific study, supplemented by extensive citizen comment, new management regulations were issued in November 2000. They put watershed health, wildlife, and recreation ahead of timber on the management priority list. They also carved out a larger role for scientists and provided for more public input early in the process of developing forest by forest plans. But in May 2001, just two weeks before the regulations were to take effect, the Bush administration suspended them, saying the new guidelines had "serious" problems and needed to be redone. In November 2002 new regulations were proposed, essentially restoring the old emphasis on logging. Two years later, on January 5, 2005, the final National Forest Management Act regulations were promulgated—radically overhauling the planning processes that have been in place for decades. The new regulations diminish public and scientific participation in the planning process by precluding environmental review, and they allow more wildlife habitat destruction. (Mike Anderson, 206-624-6430; Michael Francis, 202-429-2662) REDUCED WILDLIFE PROTECTION In 1982, during the Reagan administration, the U.S. Forest Service developed a rule requiring managers of national forests to maintain "viable populations" of fish and wildlife. This regulation helped stop the logging of many old-growth forests, especially in the Pacific Northwest. In September 2004 the Bush administration issued an "interpretative rule," saying that the viability regulation was "not in effect" anymore. Instead, managers are to base decisions on "the best available science," a loose guideline that will provide limited protection. The National Forest Management Act regulations issued in January 2005 eliminated the viability requirement. Several conservation organizations, including The Wilderness Society, are challenging both the regulations and the interpretative rule. (Mike Anderson, 206-624-6430) INCREASED OLD-GROWTH LOGGING IN THE SIERRA NEVADA The Sierra Nevada Framework was a plan developed during the Clinton administration for managing 11 national forests in California. It was the product of ten years of scientific study and public comment. In late December 2001, USDA Undersecretary Mark Rey seemed to indicate that the administration would not meddle with the Sierra Nevada Framework. Then, only a few days later, the Forest Service's new regional forester in California created a panel to "review the entire record." A Los Angeles Times editorial (January 5, 2002) described the "flip-flop" as "either a sign of blatant cynicism by the Bush administration or one boneheaded career move." The creation of the panel led to a final proposal in January 2004 that called for tripling logging over the next decade. Under this new plan, protections for old-growth forests are eliminated, and trees of up to 30 inches in diameter may be logged. Knowing that the proposal would not sit well with the public, the Forest Service hired a public relations agency, which received $90,000 in taxpayer money to try to put a better face on the plan. In February 2005, the attorney general of California, Bill Lockyer, filed a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service's plans for the Sierra Nevada, as did several conservation groups. (Sara Barth, 415-561-6641) >> More MASSIVE TIMBER SALE IN OREGON The Bush administration has proposed the largest timber sale in modern history in the area burned by the 2002 Biscuit Fire in southern Oregon. This project would allow logging on more than 12 square miles of roadless forests and cause irreparable damage to the Siskiyou National Forest. Though one of the rationales for the sale is to remove material that might feed a fire, this area is far away from any homes and communities. Despite the importance of intact watersheds for coastal cutthroat trout and chinook salmon, 89 percent of the proposed logging is in the watershed of the spectacular National Wild & Scenic Illinois River. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski strongly objects to logging in the roadless areas affected by the Biscuit Fire. Due to the intense controversy, less than one-quarter of the administration's immense logging plan had been implemented as of October 2005. A federal district court has ruled that logging of roadless areas in the Biscuit project can proceed. That ruling has been challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But the Forest Service is not waiting for a ruling from the Appeals court and plans to sell the timber and begin logging in roadless areas as early as May or June of 2006. (Mike Anderson, 206-624-6430) NORTHWEST FORESTS The Bush administration wants to increase logging levels in the Pacific Northwest, which were reduced by the Northwest Forest Plan, adopted in 1994. The administration has diluted the mitigation measures established to protect old-growth forests and sensitive species from logging (called "survey and manage protocols") as part of the Northwest Forest Plan. The administration also weakened the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which protects the region's salmon. Both of these changes in the plan have been invalidated by federal court decisions. In addition, the administration eliminated the longstanding regulatory requirement that the Forest Service maintain the viability of wildlife populations, which was an important part of the plan's legal foundation. A lawsuit challenging this regulatory change is pending. The administration further undermined the plan when it settled a timber industry lawsuit by agreeing to re-evaluate how much more timber can be logged in the old-growth reserves in coastal Oregon forests managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. As backdrop for all these developments, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has determined that the northern spotted owl is as threatened with extinction as ever. (Bob Freimark, 206-624-6430 x 228; Mike Anderson, 206-624-6430) Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands SIDING WITH INDUSTRY ON OFF-ROAD VEHICLE POLLUTION On September 13, 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a final rule setting air pollution standards for snowmobiles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and certain industrial equipment. This action followed an EPA finding that off-road vehicles are significant sources of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants. Unfortunately, the final rule squanders an opportunity to substantially reduce air pollution and better protect public health with readily available technology. Issued under intense industry pressure, the rule will allow ORVs to continue to foul the air in our national parks, national forests, and other public lands. (Kristen Brengel, 202-429-2694) >> More YELLOWSTONE CONDITIONS IMPROVING BUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION STILL WORKING TO FORCE IN SNOWMOBILE USE Three times the National Park Service has studied the impact of snowmobiles on the resources, visitors and employees of Yellowstone National Park. All three times the verdict from the National Park Service and EPA has been unmistakable: Replacing snowmobiles with full snowcoach access is the surest way to protect our oldest national park. Unfortunately, politics has delayed the progress of law, science, and public opinion, and the Bush administration has launched yet another multi-million-dollar study in a cynical search for a result it likes. So snowmobiles remain in Yellowstone—but that's not to say there's been no change. Quiet is returning to Yellowstone, and the air is clearer because more winter visitors are opting for snowcoaches instead of snowmobiles. In the past two winters, 60 percent fewer visitors have chosen snowmobiles, while 42 percent more have elected to see the spectacular winter park in snowcoaches. The result is exactly what the three studies conducted by the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency predicted: Clouds of exhaust have begun to lift from the park. In places where it has been nearly impossible to escape snowmobile noise since the early 1980s, peace and quiet are staging a comeback—evidence of the soundness of the three previous studies. Yellowstone's restoration is far from complete. According to the National Park Service, noise from even the reduced number of snowmobiles violates park standards designed to protect quiet and visitor enjoyment of natural sounds. Worse, the recovery there could be reversed if the administration puts forward yet another proposal that will dismiss science and public sentiment in order to allow damaging snowmobile use in America's first national park. (Betsy Buffington, 406-586-1600; Kristen Brengel, 202-429-2694) Mining WATERING DOWN MINING REFORM Extraction of gold, copper, silver, and other hardrock minerals has polluted streams and done other damage to the public lands for more than 150 years, due mostly to lax standards. In January 2001, after years of soliciting public comment and studying past damage, the Interior Department finalized a regulation that enabled the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to veto proposed mining operations that would do "significant irreparable harm" to public lands. The long-awaited regulation was an attempt to update standards established more than 20 years earlier. In March 2001, then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton suspended the new regulation, and on October 25, 2001, officially rescinded BLM's authority to veto mining projects on public lands that posed a threat of “significant and irreparable harm” to the environment. Norton's weakened rule, which won praise from the National Mining Association, is now in effect. The new rule also weakened other environmental safeguards and BLM's ability to enforce those safeguards. (At least the revision did not undo a new requirement for reclamation bonding or new standards governing cyanide leaching operations and the control of acid mine drainage.) (Dave Alberswerth, 202-429-2695) EASING THE WAY FOR MINING IN SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST In May 2002, the Bush administration terminated a moratorium on the filing of new mining claims on 1.15 million acres in southwestern Oregon's Siskiyou National Forest. The area includes the largest block of unroaded public lands on the West Coast, which is one reason that former Interior Secretary Babbitt imposed the moratorium. This moratorium also applied to certain BLM lands adjoining the national forest. (Dave Alberswerth, 202-429-2695; Bob Freimark, 206-624-6430) Other HAWAIIAN MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATED Some rare good news from the administration: In June 2006, President Bush used the Antiquities Act to create the Northwestern Hawaii Islands Marine National Monument, the world's largest marine protected area. The action was widely praised by conservationists. Past presidents had taken steps to protect the ecologically rich region, including in 2000 when then President Clinton declared it an ecosystem reserve. (Dave Slater, 202-429-8441) ANTI-WILDERNESS INITIATIVE In April 2003, then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton made a deal with the Governor of Utah and announced that millions of acres of wilderness-quality lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management in Utah and throughout the West would never again be considered for designation as wilderness study areas. (Such areas are to be protected by the BLM until Congress decides whether to protect them forever by adding them to the National Wilderness Preservation System.) On the same day, Norton announced that 50 million acres of wilderness-quality BLM lands in Alaska could not be reviewed or considered for wilderness designation unless Alaska's congressional delegation specifically agreed. The agency oversees 264 million acres, which is more than the Park Service, Forest Service, or Fish & Wildlife Service, but only 5.5 million acres of that land has been added to the Wilderness System. TWS and other conservation organizations have challenged the legality of the agreement. In the meantime, however, the BLM is developing new land use plans on tens of millions of acres under policies that prohibit the agency from effectively identifying and protecting lands that harbor wilderness values. And the agency has offered oil and gas leases on tens of thousands of acres of lands in Utah, Colorado, and elsewhere that have been identified by the BLM itself or citizens as deserving wilderness consideration, including areas that would become wilderness under legislation pending in Congress. On April 4, Bill Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society, sent a letter to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, asking that they use the confirmation process for the Interior Secretary nominee, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, to review Norton’s anti-BLM wilderness policies, as well as other policies that have damaged the stewardship of our public lands. (Leslie Jones, 202-429-2628; Dave Alberswerth, 202-429-2695; Eleanor Huffines, 907-272-9453) >> More SURRENDERING ON RIGHT-OF-WAY CLAIMS IN THE WEST The Department of the Interior has issued a policy that is likely to lead to untold numbers of new roads through national parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and other public lands. The policy interprets a recent court decision on R.S. 2477, a 136-year-old statute repealed in 1976, that allowed for the development of highways at a time when the West was settled. These days, the statute is used by states and counties to claim hiking trails, streams, and off-road vehicle routes are public highways in order to disrupt wilderness preservation. The Department’s policy will allow agencies like the National Park Service to surrender control of these passageways. In Alaska there are one million miles of such potential claims. In Utah, the State has claimed 100,000 roads, routes, trails, and streams as R.S. 2477 highways. In California, Oregon, and New Mexico, off-road-vehicle interests and developers are eager to take advantage of such a policy, which limits public input and provides for no environmental review in determining the legitimacy of R.S. 2477 claims. (Kristen Brengel, 202-429-2694; Eleanor Huffines, 907-272-9453) WEAKENING PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS On taking office in 2001, then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton eagerly sought to reduce the protection for the national monuments created during the Clinton years. The president told reporters that he thought some of the monuments would be good places to drill for oil. These ideas received a cold response from citizens and the media, and Congress responded with legislation temporarily banning energy leasing within monument boundaries. (That protection lasts through 2006.) But the administration didn't stop taking shots at the national monuments-or the 26-million-acre National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) of which the monuments are a spectacular part. Until final management plans are issued for new monuments and other NLCS conservation areas (a process that is underway at many, but can take three to four years), their management is governed by interim guidelines, which the administration has been changing as it pleases with little oversight. These changes are allowing more road and power line construction under new rights-of-way regulations and more off-road vehicle use in sensitive areas. These monuments also are threatened by the Interior Department's policies on RS 2477, oil and gas drilling, and wilderness designation (dealt with under other headings within this document). To mark the fifth anniversary of the NLCS, The Wilderness Society and World Resources Institute issued a report card on management so far. Most of the grades were C’s and D’s. One problem is inadequate funding and staff, and we urge Dirk Kempthorne to champion increases—and to push for designation of new national monuments. (Wendy Vanasselt, 202-429-7431) >> More GRIZZLY BEAR PLAN DERAILED With barely 1,000 grizzlies left in the Lower 48, in five separate areas, a plan was developed to reintroduce the great bear in the 1.2-million-acre Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area on the Idaho-Montana border. Logging companies, scientists, and a range of others were involved in devising this plan over a period of years. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concluded that this wilderness area "has the best potential for grizzly bear recovery" of all the Lower 48 habitats suitable for grizzlies but currently unoccupied by them. Nevertheless, in June 2001, then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton rescinded the plan. Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne, expected to be confirmed soon as Interior Secretary, loudly opposed the reintroduction plan. (Craig Gehrke, 208-343-8153) WATER LIMITATION FOR BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON NATIONAL PARK The Interior Department, negotiating in secret with state officials, gave away significant water rights held by the National Park Service for the Gunnison River as it flows through Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park in western Colorado. The April 2, 2003, agreement lacked any public involvement and is considered "a historic sellout" by conservationists. The limited flow protection may imperil a prized trout fishery and four endangered fish species, while jeopardizing the park's entire ecosystem, as it puts the park’s right to spring peak flows last in line. The agreement runs counter to a 1978 judicial ruling that the park (which was then a national monument) was entitled to the water needed to preserve the fish, wildlife, and scenery as it existed in 1933, when President Hoover first protected the area. (Suzanne Jones, 303-650-5818, x102) REFORM OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING POLICY IN JEOPARDY The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has proposed a number of changes in its livestock grazing program that would reverse reforms adopted in 1995. Those reforms reduced the threat posed to the ecological health of the 142 million acres of public lands subject to livestock grazing. The BLM published its draft rule on December 8, 2003. Though the BLM published its final EIS in June, 2005, due to various legal deficiencies in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency was forced to publish an “addendum” to the final EIS, which was released on March 21, 2006. Among other things, the new rules would: make it more difficult for the BLM to reduce grazing when it is damaging public rangeland; allow grazing permittees to privatize water rights on public lands; enable permittees to establish property rights to range improvements on public lands; and reduce opportunities for citizens to become involved in range management decisions. (Dave Alberswerth, 202-429-2695) LIMITING AND IGNORING PUBLIC INPUT The Bush administration proclaims that it wants to listen carefully to Americans' views when making decisions involving the public lands—as it certainly should. However, in a variety of ways, the administration has reduced the impact of public comment. On a number of issues—including Yellowstone snowmobile use, energy extraction on BLM lands, protection of forest roadless areas, and the impact of sonar testing on whales—the administration has made decisions contrary to widely held public views. In some cases, either willfully or because of a lack of technical competence, comments (via e-mail, fax, post card, etc.) that pass through a public interest group (and sometimes those that do not) have not been read or counted. Augmenting these problems are efforts to reduce the public's ability to challenge decisions through the courts. The primary example is 2003 legislation incorporating the president's plan to reduce fire hazards by logging more trees. Proposals to weaken NEPA are flying fast and furious. Some of the proposals call for congressional action; others are implemented by administrative order or rulemaking. In 2005, the U.S. Forest Service issued a rulemaking governing the forest planning process that proposed a dramatic change in the role of NEPA analysis. Forest Service and Interior regulations adopted in 2003 exempt from NEPA certain timber harvesting activities. The chairman of the House Resources Committee launched the "NEPA Task Force" in 2005 and held seven public meetings around the country with the aim of "improving" NEPA. The Republicans on the Task Force released a draft of their findings in December with no less than 13 recommendations to weaken NEPA in fundamental ways. Click here for a full list of threats to NEPA in existing or proposed public lands legislation. (Leslie Jones, 202-429-2628; Dave Alberswerth, 202-429-2695; Mike Anderson, 206-624-6430) NATIONAL GRASSLANDS IN JEOPARDY In Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, the U.S. Forest Service is steward of 574,000 acres of prairie that have managed to remain wild. The agency has revised its long-term management plan for this acreage, and the proposal would turn over too much of the land to the oil and gas industry and would recommend that Congress add only a small percentage to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Forest Service did not suggest a single river be given "wild and scenic" status to ward off development. (Bart Koehler, 970-247-8788) >> More CREATING HURDLES FOR USE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memo to all federal agencies on October 12, 2001, instructing them to carefully consider business concerns, law enforcement, personal privacy, and national security before releasing any information sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This memo superceded a 1993 one and shifted the emphasis from disclosure to non -disclosure, thus limiting the public's ability to determine how agency and presidential decisions were made. As a result, it will be more difficult to ferret out the truth in a range of public debates involving forest protection, off-road vehicles, mining, and oil and gas drilling, among others. We find ourselves forced to litigate far more FOIA decisions, and we have had to fight over provisions such as fee waivers. In the past, fee waivers were granted routinely. (Leslie Jones, 202-429-2628) Now, let's move on to our disappearing civil liberties. There is just so much material here, I could not possibly post it all, but I encourage everyone to please visit (and read!) the aclu Website at http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html. This page of the Website details section 215 of the Patriot Act. Please do read it and become informed. It's scary stuff, truly. There are so many other reasons why Bush is the worst president in US history. I'd be happy to post more of them here again soon, but right now I have to get back to work. I agree, BJean, that knowledge is power.

Umm... do they honestly think that overweight people don't already know the health risks? Cut me a break! It's just one more way for assholes to humiliate people and feel superior and in control. They should take that extra time, effort, and money that would go into such a campaign, and spend it finding a CURE for obesity!