home of the wildlife conservation environmental
and freedom activist
Environment Action
Alerts for April, 2003


Terminator & Exorcist Energy Bill Promotes
Unrestricted Public Land Logging
Despite Senate Vote, House
To Push for Arctic Drilling

Wrong Answer to
Victim's Rights!
Denlines 4/2/03 Help Stop Bush's
Gift to Big Timber

Help Stop the Assault
on Our National Forests
Critical Arctic Vote Next
Week - Send Email
Defend Rivers from
Hydropower Utilities

Act Now to Protect
National Forest Rules
Critical Protections for
Ocean Fish Threatened
Call to Halt the
Road to Ruin

Arctic Drilling Scheme
Moves Through House
Write Today to Save
Leatherback Sea Turtles
Help Protect the
Clean Water Act

Arctic Threat
in Energy Bill
EarthNet News
April 8, 2003
Good News from
Turkmenistan

Urgent Threat to
Peruvian Rain Forest
Save the Clean Water Act
Deadline Approaching!
Write UN General Assembly
for Ceasefire in Iraq

Tell McDonald's & Burger
King to Protect Public Health
Arctic Drilling
Passes House
ACLU's 1st-ever Lobby Day
Take Activism to Next Level

Good News on
Citibank Campaign
Stop Federal Funds
for New Nukes
Buffalo & Elk in Yellowstone
in Danger of Slaughter

Oxy Gets Sued!
Protest Tomorrow
Urge Congress to Protect
Environmental Laws
Speak Up for Marine
Mammals Protection

Monsanto's Species-
Wide Patent on Trial


from ETC Group April 1, 2003

ETC Group
News Release
April 1, 2003
www.etcgroup.org


Terminator Technology & Exorcist Technology:
New Issues and Old Controversies


The ETC Group (formerly known as RAFI) today releases "Terminator Technology: Five Years Later," a report on new issues and controversies surrounding the ongoing development of genetic seed sterilization - plants genetically engineered to render sterile seeds. Terminator technology is being developed as a biological mechanism to extinguish the right of farmers to save and re-plant seeds from their harvest, thus creating greater dependence on the commercial seed market.

ETC Group also reports on "Exorcist Technology," the biotech industry's recent attempt to develop genetically modified crops that shed their foreign DNA before harvest - with the help of chemical inducers - as a means of silencing anti-GM critics. "Exorcist is a new technology, but the basic strategy is the same - the biotech industry wants to shift all the burden to the farmer and society. If gene flow is a problem, the farmer will be obliged to apply a chemical inducer to excise the offensive transgenes. It's the newest bag of genetic tricks to fix the biotech industry's leaky genes and public relations problems," explains Hope Shand of ETC Group.

"We're still discovering new patent claims on Terminator, this time by Syngenta, and now the seed industry and the US Department of Agriculture are boldly extolling the virtues of Terminator technology for small farmers and indigenous peoples," explains Shand.

"Even more dangerous, industry is greenwashing Terminator by promoting it as a biosafety tool," says Jim Thomas of ETC Group. "The promotion of Terminator seeds as a biosafety mechanism to prevent GM pollution is biotech's Trojan Horse," explains Thomas, "If Terminator technology wins market acceptance under the guise of biosafety, it will eventually be used everywhere as a monopoly tool to prevent farmers from saving and re-using seed."

Even UPOV, the international body that promotes plant breeders' rights, concedes that Terminator has "considerable disadvantages for society." A new memo from UPOV explains that Terminator will hinder access to genetic resources.

If ministers of trade, agriculture and environment accept the US government's invitation to attend the Sacramento Ministerial Conference on Agricultural Science and Technology, June 23-25, the ETC Group recommends that the US government be held accountable for its role in developing, patenting and licensing Terminator technology. The meeting is sponsored by the US Department of Agriculture (owner of 3 Terminator patents), US AID, and the US Department of State. "If the US government plans to showcase biotech's new and controversial agricultural technologies for the South in the lead up to the WTO Ministerial in Cancún, it should begin by explaining why it supports an anti-farmer, anti-diversity technology for use in the developing world - where 1.4 billion people depend on farm-saved seeds," advises Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group.

Five years later, Terminator is not dead yet. Together with hundreds of civil society, farmers' and indigenous peoples organizations worldwide, ETC Group concludes that the only solution is for governments to recommend a global ban on suicide seeds.

The full text of the 10-page report on Terminator is now available:
http://www.etcgroup.org

For more information:

Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) silvia@etcgroup.org
Hope Shand, ETC Group (USA) hope@etcgroup.org
Jim Thomas, ETC Group (UK) jim@etcgroup.org

The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC group is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.  www.etcgroup.org. The ETC group is also a member of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme (CBDC).  The CBDC is a collaborative experimental initiative involving civil society organizations and public research institutions in 14 countries.  The CBDC is dedicated to the exploration of community-directed programmes to strengthen the conservation and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity.  The CBDC website is www.cbdcprogram.org


from American Lands April 1, 2003

To: All Activists

Fr: Lisa Dix, American Lands

Date: April 1, 2003  

ENERGY BILL PROMOTES UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC LANDS LOGGING  

Calls are urgently needed to House Resource Committee members to urge a no vote on Chairman Pombo's (R-ID), Energy Security Act of 2003, which is going to be marked-up in the House Resources Committee tomorrow April 2, 2003.
         
Phone
                          

Rep. Nick Rahall (R-WV)         202/225-6065
 

Jay Inslee, (D-WA)                   202/225-6311

Tom Udall, (D NM)                  202/225-6190
             

Mark Udall, (D-CO)                202/225-2161

George Miller,(D-CA)              202/225-2095

Jim Saxton, (R-NJ)                   202/225-4765
Wayne T. Gilchrest, (R-MD)     202/225-5311

Rep. Dale E. Kildee(R-MI)       202/225-3611
Neil Abercrombie, (D-HI)        202/225-2726
Solomon P. Ortiz (D- TX)        202/225-7742
Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ)        202/225-4671
Calvin M. Dooley, (D-CA)        202/225-3341
Ron Kind, (D-WI)                    202/225-5506
Grace F. Napolitano, (D-CA)  202/225-5256
Brad Carson, (D-OK)              202/225-2701
Raúl M. Grijalva, (D-AZ)          202/225-2435
Dennis A. Cardoza, (D-CA)     202/225- 6131
Edward J. Markey, (D-MA)      202/225-2836
Rubén Hinojosa, (D-TX)          202/225-2531
Ciro D. Rodriguez, (D-TX)        202/225-1640
Joe Baca, (D-CA)                    202/225-6161
Betty McCollum, (D-CA)          202/225-6631


from The Wilderness Society April 1, 2003

*******************************************
*Your WildAlert for Tuesday, April 1, 2003  
*******************************************

This is an urgent request for your phone calls and
faxes to the U.S. House of Representatives to protect
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge yet again. Despite
the Senate's 52-48 bipartisan rejection of Arctic drilling
on March 19, the House continues to push its drilling
plans through every available vehicle.  

The latest attack comes in the House energy bill, which
the House Resources Committee will begin debating starting
Wednesday, April 2. The measure will probably come
to the House floor sometime next week. Among its many
damaging provisions, the bill would open the Coastal
Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
and gas drilling.  

Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA), Nancy Johnson (R-CT), and others
will offer an amendment on the floor next week to strike
the Arctic Refuge provisions. We can't be sure which
day the vote will come, but House leaders have vowed
to pass an energy bill before they leave for their
spring recess April 11. Two years ago, the House narrowly
approved an energy bill that would have opened the
Arctic to drilling. We expect the vote to be very close
this time as well and we can't afford to take even
a single vote for granted. Drilling proponents are
applying heavy pressure on swing members. Conservationists
are pushing back just as hard.  

Because of the accelerated timetable for this legislation,
we urgently need you to call your member of Congress
NOW! You can reach your representative through the
Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. Please make your
call today! We've listed talking points below.

It will help us in this immensely in this effort if
you will let us know by email (action@tws.org) what
you hear when you phone your Representative.

If you are unable to call, you can send a fax to your
representative immediately from http://ga1.org/ct/Bda4MzE1d116/house_arctic

**************************************  
BACKGROUND
Despite the Senate's bipartisan 52-48 vote to strip
Arctic drilling out of the federal budget for 2004,
drilling proponents continue to press to open the Arctic
Refuge through other bills. The latest threat comes
in the energy bills being considered in both houses
right now. The House's version would open the Refuge
to oil and gas leasing.  

Make no mistake: this bill poses a grave threat to
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Senate will
mark up its own version of the bill next week. In its
current form, the Senate bill does not contain Arctic
drilling language, but the House passes an Arctic drilling
provision, then a House-Senate conference convened
to reconcile differences in the two measures could
decide to include drilling in the final bill.  

INCOMPARABLE HABITAT AND WILDERNESS
The rolling tundra of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain
with the snow-capped Brooks Range in the background
is a breathtaking sight. The Refuge is prized the world
over for its wildness, beauty, and the incomparable
habitat it provides to arctic wildlife, including wolves,
grizzlies, caribou and millions of migrating birds.
It is also the subject of an intense lobbying campaign
by the oil industry.  

Oil exploration and drilling in the Arctic will ruin
one of our last great wild places, all for what the
U.S. Geological Survey concedes is less oil than the
U.S. uses in six months, and which wouldn't get here
for 10 years or more. Moreover, the Energy Information
Administration has concluded that drilling in the Refuge
would only reduce American dependence on oil imports
from a projected 62% of our total oil supply in 2020
to 60% at peak production.  

The energy bill the House is now considering is very
similar to HR 4, the ill-conceived legislation that
passed the House in August 2001. In addition to Arctic
drilling, the bill would extend massive subsidies to
the fossil fuels industries. Other provisions seek
to "expedite" the development of energy projects on
federal lands, almost certainly at the expense of environmental
values.  

In fact, throughout the bill, existing laws and policies
designed to protect environmental values are labeled
as "impediments" and "restrictions" on energy development.
Sacrificing our environment in order to make it easier
for energy companies to exploit publicly owned resources
should not be the foundation of an energy policy for
the 21st century. We need an energy policy that protects
our wild places and invests more in cleaner, safer,
renewable sources of energy.

***********************************
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Call Now!  
Phone calls are the most helpful action you can take
because there is so little time. Please use the talking
points below when you call. The number for the House
switchboard, again, is 202-224-3121. Again, if you
could let us know by email what you hear when you call,
it will help us considerably in defending the Arctic
Refuge.  

If you can't call, you can send a fax to your representative
immediately from http://ga1.org/ct/Bda4MzE1d116/house_arctic
. If you'd prefer to send your own fax we've provided
a sample below that you can draw from.

Thank you for helping us, once again, protect the incomparable
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And thank you for
being an important part of WildAlert, our online community
of wilderness advocates!

To find the fax number for your member of the House
of Representatives, go to http://ga1.org/ct/B7a4MzE1d11O/house-gov

***********************************
TALKING POINTS
When you call your congressional office, simply tell
the person who answers the phone that you'd like to
provide your Representative your opinion about the
Energy Bill. That person will take a message and may
also be keeping a tally of calls. Please express these
major points:

1. Please ask the Representative to support the amendment
to the energy bill that will protect the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling.

2. The Arctic Refuge is an incomparable wilderness
and important wildlife habitat.

3. Oil development will do little for American energy
security; we need an energy policy that protects wild
places and invests more in cleaner, safer, renewable
energy sources;

***************************************  
SAMPLE LETTER:  

Dear Representative:  

I am very concerned about the attempt to include a
proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
in the energy legislation now under consideration in
the House. A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate
last spring soundly defeated a provision to drill in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And the Senate
defeated Arctic drilling again less than two weeks
ago. Those votes reflected the will of the solid majority
of the American public that strongly supports protecting
the Arctic Refuge. The House should stay the course
and reject attempts to drill the Arctic now.  

We need an energy policy that protects our wild places
and invests more in cleaner, safer, renewable sources
of energy. Drilling in the Arctic will ruin one of
our last great wild places. But it will do nothing
to increase national security or reduce our dependence
on imported oil. The U.S. Geological Survey concedes
that the Refuge likely holds less oil than the U.S.
uses in six months and it wouldn't reach consumers
for 10 years or more. Moreover, The Energy Information
Administration has concluded that drilling in the Refuge
would only reduce America's dependence on imported
oil from a projected 62% of our total supply in 2020
to 60% at peak production.  

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been recognized
as a place too special to sacrifice for short-term
gain. For more than thirty years the oil industry has
tried to open it to development. Thankfully, Senators
throughout the past three decades have refused to yield
to the industry's arguments, despite international
wars, rising gas prices and budget deficits. I look
to you to for such far-sighted leadership. I urge you
to support the amendment to strike Arctic Refuge oil
drilling from the Energy Bill.  

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

*******************************************

You can take action on this alert either via email
(please see directions below) or via the web at:
http://ga1.org/campaign/house_arctic/inbx8bzp7mi6

Visit the web address below to tell your friends about
this.
http://ga1.org/campaign/house_arctic/forward/inbx8bzp7mi6

We encourage you to take action by April 11, 2003

Despite Senate Vote, House To Push for Arctic Drilling

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA THE WEB:
If you have access to a web browser, you can take action
on this alert by going to the following URL:

http://ga1.org/campaign/house_arctic/inbx8bzp7mi6  

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA EMAIL:
Just choose the "reply to sender" option on your email
program.

Your letter will be addressed and sent to:
Your Congressperson  

----THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT IN YOUR NAME----
Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

I am very concerned about the attempt to include a
proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
in the energy legislation now under consideration in
the House. A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate
last spring soundly defeated a provision to drill in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And the Senate
defeated Arctic drilling again less than two weeks
ago. Those votes reflected the will of the solid majority
of the American public that strongly supports protecting
the Arctic Refuge. The House should stay the course
and reject attempts to drill the Arctic now.  

We need an energy policy that protects our wild places
and invests more in cleaner, safer, renewable sources
of energy. Drilling in the Arctic will ruin one of
our last great wild places. But it will do nothing
to increase national security or reduce our dependence
on imported oil. The U.S. Geological Survey concedes
that the Refuge likely holds less oil than the U.S.
uses in six months and it wouldn't reach consumers
for 10 years or more. Moreover, The Energy Information
Administration has concluded that drilling in the Refuge
would only reduce America's dependence on imported
oil from a projected 62% of our total supply in 2020
to 60% at peak production.  

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been recognized
as a place too special to sacrifice for short-term
gain. For more than thirty years the oil industry has
tried to open it to development. Thankfully, Senators
throughout the past three decades have refused to yield
to the industry's arguments, despite international
wars, rising gas prices and budget deficits. I look
to you to for such far-sighted leadership. I urge you
to support the amendment to strike Arctic Refuge oil
drilling from the Energy Bill.  

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

----END OF LETTER TO BE SENT----

Sincerely,


--------------------------------------------------

If you received this message from a friend, you can
sign up for The Wilderness Society at:

http://ga1.org/wilderness/join.html?r=Gpa4MzE1A1zfE


from American Civil Liberties Union April 2, 2003

From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU
To: ACLU Action Network Members
Date: April 2, 2003

1) Wrong Answer to Victim's Rights!

The Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing to once again consider a misguided effort to amend the Constitution. You're receiving this special email because one of your Senators is on the Judiciary Committee and it is crucial that you speak out now to stop this amendment before it gets to the Senate floor.

The proposal -- the so-called Victims' Rights Amendment (S.J. Res 1) -- would, if passed, jeopardize the bedrock legal principles that the accused are innocent until proven guilty and that everyone in this country should have the right to a fair trail.

While many provisions of the proposed amendment reflect laudable goals, it is unnecessary, even counterproductive, to amend the U.S. Constitution to achieve them. Every state has either a state constitutional provision or law protecting victims' rights -- or both. For this and other reasons, victims groups including National Network to End Domestic Violence, Survivors Advocating for an Effective System, Safe Horizons and the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women are speaking out against this constitutional amendment.

Take Action! You can read more and help stop this effort to amend the Constitution by sending a FREE FAX to your Senators from our action alert at:

http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=9955&c=52

2) Support Oversight over the Secret FISA Court!

In the wake of government scandals about illegal wiretaps and break-ins carried out by the FBI during the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to provide oversight to intelligence gathering activities in the United States. In the decades since its original passage, however, FISA and the super-secret court it created have steadily expanded their reach to where they now pose a significant threat to the individual rights they were originally designed to protect.

In a rare public opinion, the FISA court itself criticized the government for going too far with wiretaps. But citing procedural arguments, the Supreme Court recently rejected the case, leaving those concerned about an over-reaching government with nowhere to turn but Congress.

The Department of Justice, for example, refuses to release even the most basic information about the FISA court, such as the number of Americans under surveillance and the number of times FISA information has been used in law enforcement. But bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Patrick Leahy of Vermont would ensure that this secret court has Congressional oversight without hindering law enforcement.  Without this legislation, we will be denied the proper public accounting of this secret court's activities.

Urge your Senators to support the FISA Oversight Bill and ensure that secret courts have proper oversight!

Click here to get more information and take action:

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=12219&c=110

************************************************************************
For more information on other issues and the latest news, please visit our website at http://www.aclu.org

Help Strengthen the ACLU's Voice in Congress... Click below to become a card-carrying Member or donate today!
http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm?ORGID=AA02

If you are not already on our mailing list and would like to subscribe to the ACLU Action Network Updates, click http://www.aclu.org/team/member.cfm

To find out what more you can do to protect your civil liberties, please visit http://www.aclu.org/action


from Defenders of Wildlife April 2, 2003


A Bi-weekly Update from Defenders of Wildlife:
Working to Save Wildlife and Wild Lands

WOLF ALERT: Defenders suing Norton over weakening of protections
ARCTIC VICTORY: Senate strikes blow for environment and common sense
POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM: Pentagon seeks environmental exemptions
BIG CATS CHECKS: Four designs
SAVING FORESTS: Last chance to make your voice heard
DOLPHIN SAFE? Court hearing is next step in protecting dolphins
FLIPPER JOINS FIGHT: Dolphins hunt mines in war with Iraq
HOT OFF THE PRESSES: Read the new Defenders magazine

1. WOLF ALERT: Defenders suing Norton over weakening of protections

Wolves Defenders of Wildlife has notified Interior Secretary Gale Norton of our intent to sue her for trying to weaken protections for America's endangered gray wolves. Norton wants to classify gray wolves in most of the Lower 48 states as merely threatened rather than endangered. It's the first step toward putting wolves under the control of states where politicians want to eradicate these magnificent animals. Meanwhile, in Alaska where wolves aren't federally protected, state legislators are considering letting hunters shoot wolves from airplanes or helicopters. Hundreds of wolves would be needlessly killed by this notorious land-and-shoot hunting.

Take action to help save America's wolves: http://defenders.spacely.com/alerts/alertsMain.cfm?orgid=wdn

Click here to read "America's wolves threatened again" in the just-released issue of our Defenders magazine: http://www.defenders.org/defendersmag/issues/spring03/wolves.html

2. ARCTIC VICTORY: Senate strikes blow for environment and common sense

Polar Bears Environmentalists are celebrating a great victory in the Senate, which recently voted to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. This incomparable wilderness isn't safe yet, though. We could face a major vote on the issue next week in the House. If the House allows drilling, that could send the matter back to the Senate for reconsideration. In pressuring senators to vote with Big Oil, Secretary Norton derided America's greatest wildlife preserve as "a flat, white nothingness." But as the New York Times pointed out, the Senate "struck a blow for the environment and for common sense" by rejecting this Bush administration proposal for the second time. "It is plainly time to move forward in a systematic way with new ideas," the Times observed. "But the best we can do, it appears, is to beat back bad ones."

To read more of what newspapers are saying about this issue, click here. http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/editorial.html

3. POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM: Pentagon seeks environmental exemptions

The Pentagon is pressuring Congress to grant the military blanket exemptions from major federal environmental and wildlife protection laws in this country. But environmental groups are working to save the laws, which include the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act. A blanket waiver isn't necessary because federal law already allows case-by-case exemptions for the rare occasions when environmental laws might hurt troop readiness. The military controls 25 million acres of open space across the United States, home to more than 300 endangered plant and animal species. Learn more: http://www.defenders.org/habitat/dod .

To send a message to Congress on this issue, go to www.denaction.org  and respond to Alert #221.

4. BIG CATS CHECKS: Four designs

Checks Help save America's imperiled wildlife when you purchase Defenders' checks and accessories from Classic Checks. Select either our new Big Cats Checks with four designs (jaguar, lynx, cougar, and ocelot) -- or our logo species, wolves -- or playful dolphins to grace your checks and send a conservation message with every check you write! Save up to 50 percent off what your bank charges for checks: http://www.defenders.org/shop/checks.html

5. SAVING FORESTS: Last chance to make your voice heard

The deadline is only a few days away for public comments on the Bush administration's attack against America's national forests. Our Defenders' Environmental Network has generated more than 230,000 e-mails to the Forest Service and Congress protesting this attempt to gut the National Forest Management Act and throw open the forests to more unsustainable logging. But if we're going to stop this outrageous proposal, we need the support of everyone who cares about wildlife and its habitat. Comments will be accepted only until April 7. So please join our campaign today and tell your friends about this threat to our national forests.

To make you voice heard, go to www.savenationalforests.org .

6. DOLPHIN SAFE? Court hearing is next step in protecting dolphins

Dolphin Defenders of Wildlife will join other environmentalists next week in urging a federal judge to save dolphins from death in the nets of tuna fishermen. The Commerce Department, under pressure from the Mexican fishing industry, is trying to severely weaken the requirements for dolphin-safe labels on tuna cans. That could result in the deaths of tens of thousands of dolphins every year. Our lawsuit asks the judge to stop the department from taking action until our case can be fully heard.

Meanwhile, we're asking schoolchildren to write letters to President Bush urging him not to roll back protections for dolphins. For more information, go to www.kidsplanet.org .

7. FLIPPER JOINS FIGHT: Dolphins hunt mines in war with Iraq

Dolphins are so smart they are helping U.S. troops locate mines in the waters around Iraq. Enough mines have been cleared to allow shipments of humanitarian aid to reach shore. Dolphins use their highly tuned natural sonar to seek out the mines. The safety of these dolphins is a top priority, the Navy said. Flown to the Iraqi waters in fleece-lined slings, they are trained not to make contact with mines but to place markers near them.

8. HOT OFF THE PRESSES: Read the new Defenders magazine

The spring issue of Defenders magazine features articles on new threats to America's wolves, on the plight of our vanishing songbirds, on the Bush administration's dismantling of decades of environmental protection laws, and on our new campaign to protect wildlife from Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

To read the online version of the magazine, click here: http://www.defenders.org/defendersmag/


DENlines is a bi-weekly update of Defenders of Wildlife, a leading national conservation organization recognized as one of the nation's most progressive advocates for wildlife and its habitat. It is known for its effective leadership on endangered species issues, particularly predators such as brown bears and gray wolves. Defenders also advocates new approaches to wildlife conservation that protect species before they become endangered. Founded in 1947, Defenders is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization with more than 400,000 members and supporters.

Defenders of Wildlife
1101 14th Street, N.W.
Suite 1400
Washington, DC 20005

Copyright Defenders of Wildlife 2003



from Earthjustice Defense League April 3, 2003

Bush's Proposed Forest Rules: A Gift to Big Timber

ACT NOW:  COMMENT DEADLINE ON NEW FOREST RULES IS APRIL 7

At the urging of big logging companies the Bush administration suspended rules that were just finalized in 2000, and now propose a fundamental rewrite of the National Forest Management Act regulations.
  These rules guide the development of 15-year management plans for each National Forest. To put it bluntly, the administration has practically proposed to give the timber industry everything they have ever wanted by:

  • Attempting to create weak and unenforceable standards for wildlife conservation. 
  • Proposing that most forest lands should be available for industrial uses.
  • Attempting to eliminate environmental reviews for the 15-yearr blueprints that guide the management of national forests.

Please send a letter to the Forest Service asking them to drop this ill-conceived proposal. The Forest Service’s deadline for accepting comments on proposed new rules for managing our National Forests is April 7.  

Thank you for taking the time to save your national forests.



Send a letter to the following decision maker(s):
Chief Dale Bosworth

Below is the sample letter:

Subject: Official Comment on NFMA proposed rule changes

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

I am submitting this letter as an official comment to your proposed rewrite of the National Forest Management Act regulations as published in the Federal Register on December 6.

I am particularly opposed to the attempt to change what have historically been mandatory and enforceable requirements for maintaining viable populations of wildlife in our national forests into optional considerations that could be left to the complete discretion of forest planners. This flaw is contained in both of the alternative wildlife viability requirements presented in the December 6 proposal.

Similarly unacceptable is the proposal's indication that forest planning may be categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act. As our nation's bedrock environmental law, NEPA ensures both full consideration of potential environmental impacts of planning decisions and meaningful public participation. I am also troubled that the draft regulations seek to create a presumption that national forest lands are open to logging and other development first, and that other uses of our national forests should be a secondary consideration.

The obvious attempt to create broad discretion throughout all aspects of these proposed regulations calls into question the very foundation upon which the National Forest Management Act was based. I urge you abandon these proposed regulations in their entirety and return to the balanced and accountable forest planning envisioned by the NFMA.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,


Take Action!

Instructions:
Click here to take action on this issue or choose the "Reply to Sender" option on your email program.


Tell-A-Friend:
Visit the web address below to tell your friends about President Bush's Gift to Big Timber.
 Tell-a-Friend!


What's At Stake:

In late-November 2002, the Bush administration proposed a radical and sweeping rewrite of the forest policy that has governed the nation since shortly after passage of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) reform legislation in 1976. The changes seek to eliminate or seriously weaken vital safeguards for all of America's 155 national forests, allowing reckless logging by timber-industry profiteers and the destruction of habitat for many species of wildlife.

Under this proposed rule, forest plans could be adopted and revised without preparing an environmental impact statement, leaving the American people with only minimum information about the environmental effects of Forest Service proposals. The comment period on the proposed rule ends on April 7, 2003.

Listening to the Timber Industry Not the Scientists

Industrial interests have tried for more than a decade to have the NFMA's wildlife management requirements removed, claiming they impede logging, mining, oil and gas drilling, and motorized recreation. When the regulations were revised in 2000, they did not turn out the way industrial interests wanted due to extensive scientific and public input. At industry's request, the Bush Administration pulled the revised regulations and promised to rewrite them. The agencies proposed new rule indicates the Bush Administration is listening only to industry in this process. In particular, the agency has indicated plans to discard scientifically developed standards for assuring that logging and other activities do not undermine wildlife conservation objectives. Other proposals attempt to undermine environmental analyses, compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and the ability of the public to participate in management decisions.

NFMA Requires Wildlife Be Protected

In 1976, Congress passed the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to direct how National Forests are managed, specifically charging the Forest Service with maintaining the diversity of animals and plants on its lands. The law requires each forest and grassland to create a Forest Plan to guide how the land is managed. NFMA is based upon the premise that a comprehensive analysis of environmental impacts leads to better management decisions. NFMA's implementing regulations were originally developed based on input from a blue-ribbon "Committee of Scientists." The regulations require the Forest Service to maintain well-distributed, "viable populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate species" on National Forests. To comply with these provisions, Forest Service regional offices maintain lists of "sensitive species" -- those that are not yet officially designated endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act but for which there is concern and evidence of decline. These NFMA wildlife management requirements act as an early warning system by requiring that the needs of sensitive species are specifically considered in forest management before they become threatened or endangered.

In 1997, the Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service began updating the NFMA regulations to reflect new knowledge and science. A second high level Committee of Scientists was convened to advise the regulation revision process. The Committee urged that National Forests be managed in an ecologically sustainable manner which maintains all native wildlife. Revised regulations based on their input, plus three years of development and public involvement, were adopted in November, 2000. Five months later, in May, 2001, responding to the complaints of industrial interests, the Bush Administration withdrew those regulations and announced plans to rewrite them. Their proposed rewrite was published in the Federal Register on December 6.

Wildlife At Risk

The National Forest System includes 155 National Forests and 20 National Grasslands encompassing more than 191 million acres. Though much used for timber, mineral and energy production, and outdoor recreation, these forest lands also harbor much of the nation's biological diversity. National Forests provide habitat for more than 25% of the imperiled species at risk of extinction in the U.S., including more intact populations of these rare species than any other federal land system. National Forests and grasslands are therefore critical to safeguarding wildlife and biodiversity in the U.S. Weakening NFMA regulations, especially the wildlife viability regulation, will lead to the need to list more species as threatened and endangered. (courtesy of
www.saveourenvironment.org)

Review the draft rule


Campaign Expiration Date:
April 7, 2003


If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Earthjustice .


from Alaska Rainforest Campaign April 3, 2003


Help Stop the Assault on Our National Forests

Bush Administration Proposal Severely Weakens National Forest Protections
Make Your Voice Heard - 5 Days Left in Public Comment Period!

TAKE ACTION:
Visit the Defenders of Wildlife "Save Our National Forests" website (http://www.savenationalforests.org) to send a comment online.
(A sample letter and instructions for comment by mail, email and fax are included at the end of this alert.)

BACKGROUND:
The Bush administration has proposed to eliminate vital protections that apply to all of our national forests – including the Tongass and Chugach National Forests in Alaska. Protections that safeguard our drinking water by preserving vital watersheds, protect habitat for nearly 3,000 species of wildlife and assure that our forests remain American treasures for future generations.

Instead of listening to scientists, forest experts and the public, the Bush Administration has apparently heard only one voice -- that of his timber industry supporters who want to log our national forests without worrying about the needs of wildlife, the environment and the public.

Not that his timber industry supporters haven't already benefited from the president's help. His administration has already:
    * Appointed a former timber industry top lobbyist to set policy for the U.S. Forest Service.
    * Failed to recommend wilderness protection for a single acre in the Tongass National Forest, out of over 9 million roadless acres reviewed.
    * Rollback back Wilderness recommendations in the Chugach National Forest which at 98 percent road-free is arguably the wildest forest in the nation.
    * Opposed, undermined and failed to defend the Roadless Rule which permanently protect from logging and road-building our remaining 58.5 million acres of wild, road-free national forests.
     * Actively sought to exempt the Tongass Chugach from the Roadless Rule.

And now the Bush administration has launched its most far-reaching attack yet. Under the guise of simply changing federal regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act, they plan to eliminate or seriously weaken vital environmental protections that apply to every one of our 155 national forests, protections that have been supported by Democratic and Republican presidents alike since 1979.

Specifically, President Bush's proposal would eliminate a longstanding requirement to maintain native wildlife species on national forests; exempt forest management plans from environmental analysis; make forest plans meaningless by allowing projects like timber sales to proceed even if in violation of the plan; limit opportunities for public participation in public forest planning; and eliminate requirements for scientific input and monitoring and evaluation of plan impacts.

You can help stop this latest giveaway of our national forests. Tell Forest Service Chief Bosworth that the national forests belong to all Americans, not the administrations corporate friends in the timber industry.

Comments on there regulations are due by April 7th 2003.

****

To send your comments:

Online:
Defenders of Wildlife “Save Our National Forests” (http://www.savenationalforests.org)

By Mail:
USDA FS Planning Rule
Content Analysis Team
PO Box 8359
Missoula, MT 59807

By Email: planning_rule@fs.fed.us

By Fax:  Attn: Planning Rule Comments at (406) 329–3556.

****

Sample NFMA comment letter:


Dear Chief Bosworth,

I am registering my strong objection to the newly released proposal that seriously weakens protections for wildlife and the environment under the National Forest Management Act.

Mandatory rules to keep native species on National Forests are needed, especially since these forests are heavily used for logging, mining and oil and gas drilling. Maintaining our native wildlife must be required by law, and not be voluntary or subordinate to logging and other extractive interests. Mandatory environmental impact statements, scientific review, public participation, monitoring and evaluation are also needed.
National Forests provide sanctuary for millions of wild animals. It is the Forest Service's obligation to maintain species that depend on healthy forest habitats, and to prevent them from becoming endangered by excessive logging, clear-cutting, road-building and other extractive industrial processes.

Too many of America's National Forests have already been seriously damaged. I urge you to stop this proposal -- and protect our National Forests by managing them so they include healthy populations of all their native wildlife.

Sincerely,

NAME
ADDRESS

****

For more information on this issue or other issues effecting Alaska's rainforest, contact: Laurie Cooper, Forest Outreach Director (laurie@alaskacoalition.org).


from World Wildlife Fund April 3, 2003

Action Deadline:  April 10, 2003

We urgently need your help to oppose yet another attempt to open the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.  The House of Representatives will vote next week on national energy legislation that authorizes drilling in the refuge.  The bill also proposes a flawed and unsustainable energy policy that would cause more global warming, pollution, and wildland destruction.  Caribou, penguins, coral reefs, estuaries, and other wildlife and habitat would all suffer from adoption of such a policy.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE SIMPLE STEPS BELOW TO SEND A FREE MESSAGE URGING YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS TO KEEP OIL RIGS OUT OF THE ARCTIC REFUGE AND TO OPPOSE THE OVERALL ENERGY PACKAGE.

You can have an even greater impact by also calling the Washington, D.C. office of your member of Congress and relaying the same message. To do so, call 1-877-703-9491 (toll-free).

Please forward this alert to your friends and colleagues.

**************************TAKE ACTION NOW!*********************

If you received this email from World Wildlife Fund's Conservation
Action Network, follow the steps below for taking action.  If a friend forwarded this email to you, go to http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org/ctt.asp?u=26681&l=2012 to take action.

TO TAKE ACTION QUICKLY -- To send the message below, as is, to your member of Congress, hit "reply" to this email and then "send."  We will automatically send the message for you.  

BETTER YET, ADD YOUR OWN THOUGHTS AND GREATLY INCREASE YOUR IMPACT -- Log in to your Personal Action Center --  http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org/ctt.asp?u=26681&l=2013 -- with your email address (alerts@earthhopenetwork.net) and your password.   Once you are in your Personal Action Center, click on "Critical Arctic Refuge Vote" and follow the instructions for adding your own thoughts to your message.

If you have any questions or problems with taking action, contact us at actionquestions@takeaction.worldwildlife.org for help.

***************************LETTER TEXT**************************

Dear (your representative's name will be inserted here):

When the House considers the Energy Security Act of 2003, I urge you to support an amendment to be offered by Edward Markey (D-Ma.) and Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) to remove provisions that would authorize oil and gas development in the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The United States faces real energy issues that deserve consideration.  Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would do nothing to help lower the nation's gasoline or electricity bills, nor would it help reduce the carbon emissions that cause climate change.  The government estimates that only six months of economically recoverable oil exists in the coastal plain.

Drilling would devastate the coastal plain of the refuge.  A recent report by the National Research Council confirmed that oil and gas activities on Alaska's North Slope have taken a serious toll on the arctic environment and that the federal and state government have failed to do the planning necessary to minimize these impacts. The North Slope is a globally outstanding area for both marine and terrestrial wildlife species including polar bears, caribou, bowhead whales, and ringed seals.  The area affected by drilling is already the size of Rhode Island and is expected to double.  Therefore, I urge you to support the Markey/Johnson amendment and, if you haven't already done so, to cosponsor H.R. 770, which would protect the coastal plain of the refuge as wilderness.

I also encourage you to reject the overall energy bill.  Overly reliant on fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas, this proposal is a short-sighted approach to our country's energy future.  As a nation, we hold only 3 percent of the world's reserves of oil, yet we consume almost 25 percent of the world's daily production.  As long as this is the case, we will remain dependent on world oil markets, and we will pay the world price for oil, whether it is produced domestically or abroad.  

The safest and fastest way to increase our energy security is to improve the energy efficiency of our cars, trucks, homes, factories, and offices, and to increase the use of renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal.  Simply increasing fossil fuel production, at the expense of the wilderness areas and wildlife we all cherish, will not buy America energy security--in either the short or the long run.

Please do all you can to protect the Arctic Refuge and to support our country's transition to a sustainable energy future.

Sincerely,

Your name and address
will be inserted here

***********************END OF LETTER TEXT*********************


from American Rivers April 3, 2003

Tell your representative to support Representative Dingell's
hydropower amendment to the energy bill that will uphold existing
standards for protecting rivers and fish! PLEASE ACT TODAY - the
House of Representatives is aggressively moving an energy bill, and
the full House is expected to vote on the bill next week.  

Take action today:
http://amriversaction.ctsg.com/wac/index.asp?step=2&item=2573  

The hydropower title (Title III) of the proposed Energy Bill will
undermine basic environmental protections for our nation's rivers and
will only further complicate hydropower dam licensing.  Legislative
action isn't necessary - collaborative efforts already underway will
improve the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) licensing
process without harming rivers.  The approach taken in Title III will
have environmentally harmful consequences and won't fix anything.
Because hydropower dam licenses last 30 to 50 years, the results of
this bill are critical to the long-term health of our rivers.

Please urge your member of Congress to oppose this unnecessary and
misdirected legislation!  Urge your Representative to support the
Dingell amendment! Visit:
http://amriversaction.ctsg.com/wac/index.asp?step=2&item=2573  

Representative Dingell's (D-MI) amendment would remove the energy
bill's ill-conceived hydropower title, which will make hydropower
licensing slower, more expensive, and worse for the environment.  
Instead, the amendment would replace the hydropower title with
straightforward process changes - a compromise struck last year
between Chairman Tauzin and Congressman Dingell, and between the
environmental community and the industry.  

Specifically, the hydropower title of the proposed energy bill
creates several problems:
1. It would decrease protection for public resources including public
land, fish, and wildlife by lowering the standard for agency
conditions;
2. It would vastly increase the red tape, time and expense of the
relicensing process; and
3. By excluding all parties except the hydropower applicant, the
proposed hydropower title would skew licensing outcomes toward
hydropower interests and shut out all other users of the river.

Please visit http://amriversaction.ctsg.com/wac/ to read more and
contact your Representative.

Thank you-
American Rivers' Running Rivers Campaign
http://www.amrivers.org/hydropowerdamreform/default.htm


*************************************
Thank you for helping to protect and
restore America's rivers, and being a part of American Rivers' River
Action Center (http://www.americanrivers.org/takeaction/).

To contact American Rivers, email us at outreach@amrivers.org


from American Lands April 4, 2003

To: All Activists

From: Lisa Dix, American Lands & Andrew George, National Forest Protection Alliance

Date:  April 4, 2003  

Act Now to Protect National Forest Rules:  

1) Please comment to the Forest Service on the proposed changes to the National Forest Management Act regulations.  Comments are due Monday April 7, 2003.  Please see sample comment letter below.  

2) Please use sample campaign materials-- press release, letter to the editor, and more to generate press on Monday April 7, 2003 in response to the Forest Service's attempt to gut NFMA regulations.   

3) Get involved in the April 22 Day of Action!

_____________________________________________

SAMPLE COMMENT LETTER -- Comments need to be postmarked by Monday April 7, 2003

Please cc your Representative and Senators

(Thanks to help from WildLaw)

USDA FS Planning Rule, Content Analysis Team
PO Box 8359,  Missoula, MT 59807
Email: planning_rule@fs.fed.us  /  Fax: (406) 329-3556

Dear Forest Service,

As an individual with an interest in how my public lands are managed, I am filing these comments on the proposed changes to the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) planning regulations 36 CFR Part 219.  I believe that the proposed regulations violate several laws including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Appeals Reform Act (ARA), and NFMA itself.  The proposed regulations undermine the very purpose of NFMA - to guide the Forest Service to manage the public estate in a manner that is sustainable and in the best interests of its owners as a whole.   For these reasons and the reasons outlined below, I believe that the proposed regulations should be withdrawn.

The proposed regulations are largely discretionary and are written so as to make them voluntary and unenforceable.  "Shield's appear where "must, will, or shall's belong.  Site-specific projects would not have to comply with the land and resource management plans (forest plans or plans).  Interim amendments lasting four years could be issued without public review.  The discretionary language and loopholes are meant to address problems implementing the current planning regulation and give forest managers more flexibility in designing and carrying out management plans.  But, there has been no evidence made available to the public that shows any problem in implementing the current plans or that the new regulations would increase administrative efficiency.  The Forest Service has neither earned nor justified the need for the greater trust from the public that accompanies more flexibility for the Service.

Most troubling about the proposed regulations is the fact that forest plans would be able to be categorically excluded from environmental analysis. This categorical exclusion (CE) of forest plans significantly limits the ability of the public to participate in the management of the national forests.  With the CE, there is no opportunity for administrative appeal and there is no requirement that "all reasonable alternatives" be considered in the development of the plans.  These limitations effectively exclude the public from the decision making process.  CEs are accompanied by much more cursory environmental analysis than is done for environmental assessments (EA) or environmental impact statements (EIS), thus giving the public less information on which to comment and the Forest Service less information on which to base its decisions.  Since they were mandated, the forest plans have always been the vehicle for evaluating the cumulative impact of multiple projects that an area could be expected to endure.  This analysis of cumulative impacts is critical to maintaining the sustainability of our national forests and must be subjected to the rigorous environmental analysis embodied in an EIS.  Forest Plans should not be categorically excluded; to do so violates NEPA, NFMA, and ARA.

There was no consultation with a committee of scientists during the formulation of the proposed regulations as there has been for every prior rewriting.  This lack of independent scientific input epitomizes how the Forest Service plans on conducting all of its decision-making under the new regulations.  There are no requirements for peer review, scientific advisory boards, adaptive management, or standardized monitoring.  Species protections will be significantly weakened with the elimination of the requirement to monitor management indicator species (MIS) or do population surveys.  There are no binding requirements to ensure the viability of species or safeguards adequate to protect the habitat of MIS or threatened and endangered species as required by NFMA.  This shunning of science in the management of the forests will lead to the listing of ever more species as threatened or endangered, the decline of the productivity and resiliency of our forests, and the violation of the public trust.

The proposed plans clearly prioritize logging and natural resource extraction over all other uses in contradiction of the will of the public for whom these lands are held in trust.  This prioritization of logging and the resulting de-emphasis of sustainability violates the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA), which requires that public lands are used to "best meet the needs of the American people," and the Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA).  The public must be allowed to express its desires for the use of its lands and the Forest Service is under legal obligation to meet the public's management goals.  For years the public has sustained its message that it doesn't want logging to undermine the many other resource and ecosystem values of its land.  Any regulations that do not recognize values such as recreation, aesthetics, water quality, species habitat, and ecosystem integrity should not be considered.

I am also very concerned about the cumulative effect of the numerous proposals and actions taken by the Bush Administration in the last several months.  Together these changes in the regulations guiding forest management would affect changes that could not be predicted or analyzed by looking at any single proposal.  If all regulations are adopted, the total effect would be to allow the categorical exclusion of nearly every project on our national forests, eliminate most avenues available to the public for weighing in on public lands management, and eliminate meaningful consideration of the cumulative impact of multiple projects on a landscape.

Please withdraw these proposed regulation and thank you for the opportunity
to comment.

_______________________________

TALKING POINTS FOR LETTER TO EDITOR

The laws that protect America's national forests are more threatened than any other time in US history.


… America's National Forests comprise some of the most biologically and economically significant land left on earth. The 191 million acres that comprise our National Forest system is the best wildlife habitat in the US for over 3,000 fish and wildlife species and 10,000 plants. In fact, more than one quarter of the nation's imperiled species are found on National Forests.

… Despite the high value of these irreplaceable treasures, the Administration in Washington, D.C has put career
corporate logging lobbyist Mark Rey in charge of deciding the fate of America's endangered national forests.

… While the nation is distracted by the war on Iraq, Rey and the timber industry are working behind-the-scenes to re-write our environmental laws. Their goal: increase commercial logging and resource extraction by eliminating public participation and the laws that restrict logging.

… If Rey's corporate takeover is successful, logging corporations will have more authority over America's Forests than the Americans who own the forests.

… The American people overwhelmingly support the complete protection of National Forests from logging and commercial exploitation. We treasure our national forests for providing clean water, places to hunt, fish and camp and open spaces.

… Commercial logging and road-building in national forests costs us, U.S. Taxpayer's, over $1.2 BILLION a year to supply the country with only 2% of the wood we use.

… It's time we put local people to work restoring the damage caused by over a century of logging on our National Forests. The National Forest Protection and Restoration Act does this by permanently protecting our federal public lands from commercial logging and redirecting those funds toward ecologically based restoration. Learn more at
www.forestadvocate.org and www.americanlands.org.

 

SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

(Thanks to Joshua Martin from American Lands)  

On Thursday, April 3rd, 107 members of Congress sent a letter to George W. Bush expressing deep concern about several proposals, which if carried out, would severely degrade our national forests and undermine citizen rights.
   These changes are part of a systematic assault by the Administration on the role of science and public participation in the decision making process for our national forests.  Without sound policies, our public forests will be left vulnerable to profit-oriented exploitation.  The letter asks the President to withdraw these misguided proposals immediately.  The proposals relate to the way the executive branch is enforcing, or failing to enforce, bedrock environmental legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. Specifically the letter states, "the cumulative effect of these proposals is a radical rewrite of national forest policy to the detriment of the public."   Here in the state of (your state), (members who signed on), should be commended for this support for this letter.   Those that did not should be called and encouraged to speak up, for their silence equals compliance with this destructive agenda. The Forest Service is taking your comments on these changes to the National Forest Management Act regulations until April 7th at planning_rule@fs.fed.us.
SAMPLE PRESS RELEASE:

(Thanks to Defenders of Wildlife)  

Please feel free to change the quotes to your own.   Press release should not go out until Monday April 7, 2003.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                      

Contacts:

Embargoed until April 7, 2003                                            

 YOUR ORGANIZATION         

107 Members of Congress, 325 Scientists, More Than 100,000 Citizens

Oppose Changes to Forest Policy

WASHINGTON - More than 100 congressional representatives today joined 325 scientists and researchers, including Michael Soule, Gordon Orians and renowned Harvard scientist E. O. Wilson, and more than 100,000 citizens in opposition to the Bush administration's efforts to radically change how the public’s 155 national forests are managed.  The letters and emails ask the administration to withdraw proposed changes to the National Forest Management Act regulations, which govern all activities that take place in the nation's publicly-owned forests.   Today marks the end of the public comment period on the proposal, which was announced in November 2002.    

The proposed rule change would :  


·     Weaken safeguards for wildlife and wildlife habitats;


·      Exempt forest plans from environmental review;


·      Place sharp new limits on the ability of citizens to participate in the development of management plans for national forests;


·      De-emphasize the priority placed on achieving ecological sustainability; and


·      Reduce the role of science, scientists, and monitoring in forest planning.  

The end result of the proposed changes would be to allow a dramatic increase in logging and the destruction of forests and habitat for many species of wildlife.
  

Rep. Nick Joe Rahall (D-WV) and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) authored the letter co- signed by 105 other members of the House of Representatives.  It is the latest of four letters sent by senators and members of Congress since release of the proposal, including one from Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and 10 other House Republican members calling for a review of the proposal by the National Academy of Sciences.  

Unlike all other revisions of the National Forest Management Act regulations since 1979, the proposed rules were developed without the input of an independent committee of scientists authorized by the law. The regulations were just revised in 2000, after three years of public and scientific meetings held across the nation.   The final 2000 revision was based on the recommendations of an independent committee of scientists.  

"Excluding the input of scientists in this process is effectively rolling the dice on the future of many imperiled fish and wildlife species in the national forests," said Dominick DellaSala, Ph.D., the director of World Wildlife Fund's Klamath Siskiyou office and one of the authors of the scientist’s letter.
Details of the administration’s proposal
: 
 


·          Allow forest plans to be exempted from the analysis of their environmental impacts required by the National Environmental Policy Act.  


·          Undermine public participation in the forest planning process.   The rule would discount petitions, cards and other methods citizens use to contact their government.   For this proposed rule change, the Forest Service filtered certain e-mail comments and did not include them in the official record.  


·          Do away with the "population viability" rule that requires the Forest Service to maintain native species of wildlife in each national forest. The rule provides a clear yardstick for assessing the impact of logging on wildlife conservation and on forest ecosystem health.

The administration’s proposal adopts at least eight major recommendations made by the association that represents the nation's largest logging companies, the American Forest and Paper Associ