[chapter-communicator] FW: Articles of Interest The New York Times April 17, 2002
- From: "BIANCHI, John" <JBIANCHI@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: #Audubon Board of Directors <IMCEAEX-_O=AUDUBON_OU=NATIONAL_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BoardOfDirectors@xxxxxxxxxxx>,#Audubon Staff <audstaff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:38:22 -0400
To Audubon Family:
I learned from John Bianchi that I can use e-mail to send out articles which
appear in The New York Times which may be of interest.
I draw your attention to the following articles that appeared in the The New
York Times on Wednesday, April 17, 2002.
Please let me know if you would not like to receive articles of this nature.
Donal
_______
From the Office of...
Donal C. O'Brien, Jr.
From the Office of
______________________________________________________________________
<http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/misc/printlogo.gif>
April 17, 2002
Park Service Issues a Split Decision on Use of Water Scooters
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE <http://graphics4.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/w.gif>
ASHINGTON, April 16 - The National Park Service announced today that it
would adhere to a Clinton-era legal agreement by permanently closing five
national parks to ``personal watercraft,'' motorized water scooters that
have become increasingly popular. But the agency also ordered eight other
national parks to reopen their review process, a step that could allow the
craft back in.
The five parks to be closed permanently to personal watercraft, effective
next Monday, all wanted the ban. They are Cape Cod National Seashore, in
Massachusetts; Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area, in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, in Indiana;
Cumberland Island National Seashore, in Georgia; and Whiskeytown National
Recreation Area, in California.
The Park Service will also ban personal watercraft on that date in the eight
other parks, but only temporarily, until they finish their renewed review
process. Five of them do not want the ban and are hastening to finish their
reviews so they can let the machines back in as soon as possible. They are
Fire Island, in New York; Gateway, in New York and New Jersey; Assateague,
in Maryland; Big Thicket, in Texas; and Pictured Rocks, in Michigan.
But the ban is wanted by the three others: Cape Lookout National Seashore,
in North Carolina; Gulf Islands National Seashore, in Mississippi and
Florida; and Padre Island National Seashore, in Texas.
The battle over personal watercraft - Jet Skis, Wave Runners and the like -
began years ago, with their growing use in the national parks. Officials of
several parks rebelled against that use, as did much of the public, saying
the watercraft disrupted their enjoyment of the parks and damaged marine
life.
In March 2000, the Clinton administration settled a lawsuit brought by the
Blue Network, an environmental group that sought to bar the craft from the
parks. As a result of the settlement, the craft are already forbidden in 66
of the 87 national parks that allow motorized boating. Of the 21 others, 13
are dealt with in the announcement today; in the remaining eight,
personal-watercraft bans are to take effect on Sept. 15.
The new announcement comes a day before a court hearing in Texas in a
potentially far-reaching suit brought by the personal-watercraft industry
against the government. The industry seeks to overturn the bans that are
effective next Monday and on Sept. 15, and to reverse those in almost all
the other national parks. The exceptions would be Yellowstone, the Grand
Canyon and the Everglades, whose high profile as national jewels could bring
unfavorable publicity to the industry.
The suit contends that many of the park superintendents who want the bans
did not conduct the full and proper reviews that would justify them. That
contention figured into the Park Service's decision made public today, said
Gerry Gaumer, a spokesman for the agency. Closing the parks to the craft
without a full review process, he said, ``would be arbitrary, as the lawsuit
says.''
Steven Bosak, director of motorized use programs at the National Parks
Conservation Association, an advocacy group, said political pressure from
members of Congress who opposed the bans had apparently led the Park Service
to reopen the review process.
Kristen Brengel of the Wilderness Society said the park superintendents had
already completed reviews but were being overruled by a Bush administration
sympathetic to the industry, just as the Park Service had concluded that it
should phase out snowmobiles from Yellowstone, only to see the
administration reopen that issue as well.
``They're asking for extra studies to enable the higher-ups in D.C. to
reverse course on these professional Park Service decisions,'' she said.
``We've seen it in Yellowstone. The snowmobile and personal-watercraft
industries have unprecedented access to this administration, and the
administration is willing to reverse course on environmental decisions in
order to benefit these industries.''
Asked if political pressure had led to the reversal, Mr. Gaumer, the Park
Service spokesman, said: ``You have a lot of people in favor of bans and a
lot opposed, but the Park Service has to consider the park resources. And if
we do environmental assessments, then we know for sure, and it's not a
matter of public opinion or Congressional opinion.''
Copyright <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html>
2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html> Information
<http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/misc/pixel.gif>
______________________________________________________
<http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/misc/printlogo.gif>
April 17, 2002
Senate Moves to Showdown on Drilling in Alaska
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM <http://graphics4.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/w.gif>
ASHINGTON, April 16 — The Senate moved today toward a showdown vote,
probably on Thursday, on oil and gas exploration in the Alaska wilderness, a
core element of President Bush's energy policy and one of Washington's most
hotly contested political issues.In an effort to pick up votes of Democratic
senators from steel-producing states, Alaska's Republican senators offered
an additional measure that would require a portion of the revenue from oil
produced in the wilderness to be used to pay the health and other retirement
benefits of steel workers.But all indications today were that, faced with
relentless opposition from environmentalists, proponents of new drilling in
Alaska would lose once again, just as they have every time the question has
come up over the last decade.Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the
Democratic leader, said the measure's sponsors did not have the 60 votes
necessary to bring the matter to a final vote under Senate rules and might
not even have the support of a majority of senators. Republican leaders did
not directly dispute that assessment.President Bush and most Republicans in
the Senate hold that new exploration in Alaska is essential if the United
States is to become less dependent on imported oil, and they cite the
turmoil in the Mideast and political uncertainty in Venezuela as evidence of
why energy independence is urgent. Democrats counter that even if
exploration begins today, no new oil from Alaska will be available for
years. Further, the Democrats say that drilling in the Arctic wilderness
would be environmentally disastrous and that a better way to reduce reliance
on imported oil would be to toughen fuel-efficiency requirements for cars
and trucks, a step the Senate rejected last month.After delaying for more
than a month as he tried to round up votes, Senator Frank H. Murkowski
finally offered his proposal today to open for exploration the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, an unspoiled stretch along Alaska's north coast.
Immediately, his fellow Republican senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens,
submitted a corollary proposal to help faltering steel companies meet their
crushing obligation to retirees, costs incurred when the industry was much
more profitable.The proposals were presented as amendments to a
comprehensive energy bill the Senate has been debating since early March.
The House passed a companion bill last year that would permit exploration in
the wildlife refuge, but without Senate concurrence it cannot become
law.Hoping to meet some of the objections from environmentalists, Mr.
Murkowski included some restrictions in his amendment. Surface disturbance
would be permitted on only 2,000 acres of the 19-million-acre reserve, and
an additional 1.5 million acres in Alaska would be designated as
wilderness.In addition, under the amendment, none of the new-found oil could
be exported, except to Israel. And the amendment specifies that the area
would not be opened to exploration unless the president certified that
production there was necessary because of national security.The concessions
to environmentalists, exception for Israel and help for the steel industry
appeared to swing few if any votes. Insiders from both parties estimate that
give or take two or three votes, there are probably 50 votes on each side of
the issue.Late today, to set up a test vote, Democratic leaders moved to cut
off the debate on the wildlife refuge. The move, called cloture, would
require 60 votes to succeed, and the vote is expected on Thursday.If, as
seems likely, the cloture vote fails, two courses are possible. The most
likely one is that Republicans will withdraw their wildlife refuge
amendments, help pass the overall energy bill and hope for the best in the
conference with the House. The other possibility is that Republicans will
continue to debate the issue, and Senator Daschle will remove the entire
bill from consideration.Mr. Murkowski and Mr. Stevens held the Senate floor
for most of this afternoon, making the case for exploration in their state.
Mr. Murkowski showed color photographs of bears walking peacefully on the
Alaska pipeline and of Eskimo children who, he said, "dream of a better
life" that would be possible if new oil was found near their communities.The
United States, Mr. Murkowski declared, cannot afford to have its national
security held hostage to "a massive disinformation campaign" by
environmentalists.Democrats will present their case on Wednesday.
Copyright <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html>
2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html> Information
<http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/misc/pixel.gif>
_____________________________________________________________________
<http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/misc/printlogo.gif>
April 17, 2002
Weed Killer Deforms Sex Organs in Frogs, Study Finds
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS <http://graphics4.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/w.gif>
ASHINGTON, April 16 (AP) — Male frogs exposed to very low doses of a common
weed killer can develop multiple sex organs, sometimes both male and female,
researchers in California have discovered.The weed killer, atrazine, is the
most commonly used one in North America and can be found in rainwater, snow
runoff and ground water, said Tyrone B. Hayes of the University of
California, who led the research."There is virtually no atrazine-free
environment," Dr. Hayes said.The Environmental Protection Agency permits up
to three parts per billion of atrazine in drinking water.The University of
California team found it affected frogs at doses as small as 0.1 part per
billion. As the amount of atrazine increased, as many as 20 percent of frogs
exposed during their early development produced multiple sex organs or had
both male and female organs. Many had small, feminized larynxes.The research
is reported today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science.Asked if atrazine might be a threat to people at low levels, Dr.
Hayes said he did not know, adding that, unlike frogs, "we're not in the
water all the time.""I'm not saying it's safe for humans," he said. "I'm not
saying its unsafe for humans. All I'm saying is it that it makes
hermaphrodites of frogs."Dr. Hayes's research team concluded that atrazine
caused frog cells to produce the enzyme aromatase, which is present in
vertebrates and converts the male hormone testosterone to the female hormone
estrogen.
The effects on frogs in Dr. Hayes's study occurred at exposure levels
smaller than a 600th of the dose that induced aromatase production in human
cells.
Stanley I. Dodson of the University of Wisconsin called the work "the most
important paper in environmental toxicology in decades."
Asked if people should be worried, Dr. Dodson said, "We don't know," but he
added, "It's like a canary in the mine shaft sort of thing."In his research,
he said, he found that low exposures atrazine changes the ratio of males to
females among water fleas.
Besides atrazine's effects on developing frogs, the California researchers
found that testosterone levels in mature male frogs exposed to atrazine
decreased to the levels in female frogs.
Copyright <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html>
2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html> Information
<http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/misc/pixel.gif>
Other related posts:
- » [chapter-communicator] FW: Articles of Interest The New York Times April 17, 2002
