Posted on 05/22/2005 7:15:26 AM PDT by SandRat
SIERRA VISTA - An environmental group has two federal agencies and two state agencies in its sights for allegedly failing to protect the San Pedro River.
The Army and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have earned the ire of the Center for Biological Diversity, which contends Fort Huachuca officials have failed to meet their contractual obligations with USFWS.
The center also accuses the Arizona Department of Water Resources and state Attorney General's Office of engaging in fraud or not investigating fraudulent actions.
Phoenix physician Robin Silver informed the two federal entities in March the center intended to sue if there was no reopening of the biological opinion.
On Saturday, Silver said the 60-day period that both organizations had to respond to the center's intent letter filed in mid-March is over.
"They had 60 days to respond and they didn't," he said. "We will file the suit on May 31."
Garrison Commander Col. Jonathan Hunter said Saturday that there will be no comments about the lawsuit until it has been filed and Army officials can review the document.
Hunter said during an interview in March that he disagreed with Silver's and the center's view that the fort is expanding beyond what is authorized in the agreement. He said then that the post expects to grow by a couple of hundred employees, as well as additional students who are trained on the fort while in a temporary duty status, meaning they are not permanently assigned to the installation.
In the center's March notice, Silver said the fort's population expanded by 2,851 people.
The agreement the post and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entered into binds the Army to limit its growth, he said.
The biological opinion was signed by the two federal agencies on Aug. 23, 2002. The fort is bound not to expand by more than 500 between that date and 2011, Silver said.
He said that because the post broke its contractual obligations, the center wants the Army and Fish and Wildlife Service to re-negotiate the agreement.
Silver denies he wants the post closed, but admits he does not want it to expand.
On May 13, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld released his proposed Base Realignment and Closure Commission list.
The post was not on the list to close, but the Pentagon's plan made a slight reduction of jobs on the installation - 167 civilian positions lost.
Another issue for Silver is that the fort has failed to "significantly lower" its groundwater pumping deficit for 2003 and 2004, which Hunter said is not true.
Hunter said the fort has taken many actions to save water.
"The fort's record of water conservation, mitigation and reuse is excellent," Hunter said in a March 19 Herald/Review article.
Bob Strain, chairman of the Upper San Pedro Partnership and Sierra Vista's mayor pro tem, said the fort and partnership are doing good work in conserving water.
Although the partnership's actions may not be fast enough for Silver, the group's actions are leading to reduced water use in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, which includes the fort, Sierra Vista, Bisbee, Huachuca City, Tombstone and many parts of Cochise County's unincorporated areas, Strain said.
State agencies targeted, too
The center also is aiming its efforts at ADWR and the state's Attorney General's Office. On Friday, the Center for Biological Diversify, through Silver, inferred the two state agencies are failing to meet their duties in protecting the river.
In a letter to Attorney General Terry Goddard and ADWR Director Herb Guenther, Silver said the state water regulatory agency continuing to give certificates of adequacy in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed is fraud.
Silver contends continued growth in the subwatershed is stopping water from reaching the river.
"There is not adequate water," he said.
The state's Attorney General's Office is a partner to the fraud because it will not investigate the dishonest certification of water adequacy, according Silver's Friday letter.
Goddard said he had a conflict of interest in investigating the issue, but Silver said a review of state law shows he can look into ADWR's practices.
The center filed the same concerns last year with both agencies, Silver said. Friday's letter is bringing the issue the agencies attention again.
Under the state's Consumer Fraud Act, Goddard can look into ADWR's improper actions, Silver said.
In 1984, ADWR went on record saying there wasn't a sufficient supply of water in the subwatershed and refused to issue certificate of adequacy, he said.
But in 1993, under pressure from then Gov. Fife Symington, the decision was reversed, Silver said.
If there was inadequate water in 1984 to 1993, there is inadequate water now in light of the expanded growth in the subwatershed, he added.
Any resident who lived in the region prior to 1985 has water rights, Silver said. But those who moved in after 1985 may see water use reduced once the federal water rights issue is finalized, he said.
ADWR's change of position in 1993 "didn't do a service to anyone," Sliver said.
He believes the problems would not be as large as they are today if an Active Management Area had been established in the subwatershed.
ADWR has refused on at least two occasions to designate the region an AMA, which would restrict development and require developers and others to inform potential builders and buyers there is no 100-year guarantee of water.
Strain, who was in Tucson on Saturday attending a meeting about Tucson's water problems, said it is interesting that the Pima County community is part of an AMA and ADWR is providing the necessary certificates of water adequacy.
Most of Tucson's water supply is from a municipal utility, unlike most wells in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed that are operated by private water companies or owned by residents. Tucson is in the process of preparing for water bond issues, which could involve forced conservation.
Tucson is suffering from land subsidence and is not receiving its share of Central Arizona Project water, Strain said.
"It is still growing, faster than we are (in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed)," he said.
Threatening to sue state agencies
Silver said continued growth will lead to the eventual death of the San Pedro River, the Southwest's last ribbon of life for many species. The river must continue to flow, especially in the hot, dry summer months, he said.
Growth will continue until certificates of water adequacies are stopped, Silver said.
"Damages to individual property owners will also be substantial if ADWR fails to stop falsely representing the adequacy of future supply in the Fort Huachuca area. If the fraud is not stopped, federal infrastructure loans, underwriting and loan guarantees will continue, water restriction will become necessary and the San Pedro River will undoubtedly die," said Silver, who owns property along the waterway.
Like he did in March, Silver warned the two state agencies they face a possible lawsuit.
"With this notice please be advised of our intention to pursue citizen legal action in Superior Court if the Arizona attorney general continues refusing to investigate and halt ADWR's ongoing violations of the Consumer Fraud Act," Silver's Friday letter states.
These clowns never do anything to the Tucson or Phoenix communities over water cause that's where they live.
The ENVIRONUT-TALIBAN is at it again.
Ping....
I would like to know who is paying for this lawsuit?
Cal, is it Soros?
I read it as another anti-war, commie liberal democrat, who hates the military and freedom.
Enemy without... enemy within...
Gheeez!
CBD is a lefty outfit founded to drive the small rancher off the land which will allow its big financeers to buy up the land on the cheap. This must be a sideshow for them, and of course they ignore the fact that Mexico is moving its people and failed culture north, but I guess the George Soros' of the world think those eaters can be taken care of once they disposses those pesky Americans.
I still want to see his FBI file under FOIA.
There's got to be some juicy stuff in there we can use against him.>>>>>>
Now that is one that I would like to read, let me see it too
when you get it......pretty please....LOL
From your description, he isn't wearing a black mask in Palo Alto this past week, but I will bet he had a part in planning it.
From your list of groups, you can bet Soros is in there.
Now that is an FBI file to look at, Soros file would need a warehouse to keep it in.
This looney is cheesed off because the Fort didn't come out on the BRAC list.
And what is up with Tucson and Phoenix. They have now where the water conservation awareness that we have here in SV. Why do they get a pass from the environmental wackos?
I was in a doctor's waiting room reading an environmental magazine. In its contents were articles on the semi-secret government contrail program and a large section devoted to environmental law studies. Can't recall the magazine. They know they will prevail with judges and lawyers not through representative government.
Yes, the Environmental Groups are terror groups. They got in the schools first with their ‘humane and environmental education’ being added to the curriculum.
Our future will be determined by the children
Virtually every medical advance has used animals in some stage of research or testing. Thus, whether medical progress continues at the same pace in the next century depends upon an informed public supporting the continued use of animals in responsible research and testing. Let us hope that the children of today make their decisions tomorrow using a moral value system that distinguishes between humans and animals and between animal welfare and animal rights.
Confrontation
Some groups have taken a direct approach and clearly label their curriculum as animal rights. They mislead students about issues of animal abuse. Adrian Morrison, the director of animal issues for the National Institutes of Mental Health, summed up their approach best when he said: “Everyone has the right to believe a rat is due the same moral consideration as a child. What is wrong, though, is the promotion of beliefs among the untutored by dishonest presentations of the ways animals are used by humans. Such tactics have, in fact, been used to discredit biomedical research using animals – tactics that were a necessary prelude to the current campaign against biology education: Convince people that animals are badly used in one sphere and reap carry-over benefits from this ‘softening up’ process when you focus on another arena.”1
Deception
Other animal rights groups have elected a devious approach – a secret battle. They disguise their goals and methods by disavowing the methods of the militant animal rights movement. Instead of ‘animal rights,’ they call their curriculum ‘humane and environmental education.’ They avoid the term ‘animal rights’ but teach the same value system. Most educators are unaware of this deception. Teachers welcome humane education as a means to prevent violent behavior in some students and environmental curriculum as a means to develop a sensitivity to the environment. More than 20,000 teachers nationwide have bought into this program.
Have their school efforts been successful? Several different student polls have shown steady gains for the acceptance of the animal rights philosophy. The most alarming of these was a 1993 national Gallop poll which demonstrated that 60 percent of American teenagers “support animal rights,” including bans on all laboratory and medical tests that use animals. How have they been able to produce such a striking change in attitude?
HSUS
The Humane Society of the US with its 1.5 million members calls itself the nation’s largest animal protection organization. Few people know that the HSUS animal protection philosophy is not animal welfare but an animal rights philosophy that says it is morally wrong for humans to use or kill animals and that they have been guided by that philosophy since 1980.2
Furthermore, HSUS has set as its goal the abolition of animals in laboratory research and education.3,4,5 In recent years, HSUS elected to call themselves ‘animal protectionists’ to disassociate their group from the bad press that the Animal Liberation Front and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have brought to the animal rights movement. HSUS shares the same animal rights philosophy and goal of abolishing the use of animals in laboratory research as militant animal rights groups, but they differ in tactics and timetable for reaching that goal. Their tactic is to slowly but progressively wean society away from using animals.
In order to avoid the extremist label HSUS has deliberately sought to project a ‘moderate’ image and hide the animal rights message under animal protectionism and the guise of humane and environmental education. Many of the HSUS projects are laudable and could be described as animal welfare. They work very hard to keep that image. Corporate donations and the respect of the education community are dependant on that image. However, their hidden agenda is to get people to give animals the same respect they give humans. What better method to accomplish a change in societal values than by incorporating it into a nationwide elementary school curriculum on humane and environmental education?
NAHEE
Is HSUS a Trojan Horse being covertly carried into the citadel of elementary education?6
HSUS has endeavored to establish itself as The Authority in humane and environmental education. Indeed, the organization has won several awards for KIND News; has had the Adopt-a-Teacher program placed in the 1992 Environmental Success Index; and had a field representatives appointed to the prestigious National Environmental Education Advisory Council of the Environmental Protection Agency.
To help establish this reputation, HSUS created the National Association for Humane and Environmental Education, a separate youth education division. NAHEE had a 1992 budget of $940,000 and 14 full-time staff , an increase of 31 percent over the 1991 budget. The goals for NAHEE were articulated in the 1992 HSUS annual report: “ ... NAHEE strives to ensure that humane attitudes become a viable part of mainstream education and environmental perspectives. ... NAHEE continues to monitor and evaluate new children’s books, children’s magazines, and newspapers as well as all major elementary and secondary teaching magazines and newspapers to encourage the promotion of humane values in publications other than our own.”7
Indeed, NAHEE has been successful in influencing other publications as evidenced by a series of three grossly misleading articles biased against using animals in medical research which appeared in the nine-million circulation Weekly Reader and its companion for middle schools Current Science.6 NAHEE’s influence even extends beyond the USA as they have sent their educational materials to 13 foreign countries.
It is clear that HSUS has been acknowledged as The Authority and is being warmly welcomed through the educational gates of Troy by unsuspecting teachers and administrators who thought they weregetting ‘humane and environmental education’ but ended up with those elements mixed with a subtle animal rights message that says it is wrong for humans to kill, capture, or use animals for any reason. It is a message that elevates respect for animals to the same plane as respect for humans. This is a brilliant tactic as respect and consideration for animals is a hallmark of animal welfare. HSUS has reduced the difference between animal rights and animal welfare to the degree of respect and consideration given animals, thus blurring the difference between the two.
KIND News, KIND Teacher
NAHEE’s primary effort is directed at publishing and distributing a classroom newspaper covering laudable humane and environmental themes laced with a heavy dose of respect for animals, endangered species, and an emphasis on not harming animals.
Kids In Nature’s Defense (KIND News) is published at three reading levels for children in grades one through six and is read by more than 600,000 children in 20,000 classrooms nationwide. KIND News does not cover controversial animal rights issues. However, the accompanying teachers’ guide (KIND Teacher) brings up animal rights issues without identifying them as such. KIND Teacher indoctrinates children by having the teacher lead discussions on the use of animals in dissection, the use of wild animals in laboratory research, the use of animals in product safety testing, the keeping of wild animals in zoos and circuses, the capture and sale of wild birds, hunting, trapping, and rodeos.8 KIND Teacher also promotes the students to form KIND Clubs and engage in club projects. The nature of the project and the agenda is determined by the club and club president. Given the HSUS emotional and strongly–held position on these issues, can we expect a balanced presentation?
HSUS Student Action Guide
The HSUS Student Action Guide, NAHEE’s newspaper for middle and secondary students, is more direct as it openly seeks to promote activism by forming Earth-Animal Protection Clubs. These clubs target a number of animal rights issues, including laboratory animal research, product safety testing, dissection, animals in science fairs, zoos, animals in entertainment, hunting, trapping, and dolphin-safe tuna. The students are referred to HSUS to obtain specific misleading materials on these issues as well as animal research and so-called alternatives to animal research.
California’s environmental education
Given this background, I was concerned when I learned through the 1992 HSUS annual report that “Materials published by NAHEE such as ‘Sharing Sam’ and lessons from KIND Teacher had been incorporated into A Child’s Place in the Environment, California’s new environmental education curriculum guide. The guide promises to have a substantial impact since one out of nine children in the US attends schools in California. In addition, the guide will inevitably serve as a model nationwide.”
NAHEE and animal rights in California’s school curriculum
In 1993, I obtained a late stage draft of the first grade edition of the guide Respecting Living Things from the California Board of Education. Fortunately, the guide had not been finalized and was still in draft form. I was surprised to find that three out of the nine guide reviewers were affiliated with NAHEE and one NAHEE field representative was on the guide committee.
The guide had a pronounced animal rights bias as half the recommended resources at the end of several units were animal rights books such as The Animal Rights Handbook: 67 Ways to Save the Animals by Anna Sequoia and Animal Rights International, The Animals’ Agenda, and Going Green, A Kid’s Handbook to Saving the Planet. These resources contained grossly misleading and dishonest presentations of how animals are used by humans and in some cases gory pictures of animals that are totally inappropriate for first graders. Furthermore, more than half the resources listed as “organizations concerned with humane treatment of animals” turned out to be animal rights organizations such as HSUS, NAHEE, the Fund for Animals, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute of America. The guide also suggested additional names of humane organizations listed in the book 67 Ways to Save the Animals. There were 77 organizations listed in the book and all 77 were identified by the author as ‘animal rights organizations.’
Respect = sacred reverence for animals
A common theme that ran through the unit on Respecting Living Things was that animals were anthropomorphized and respected to the point that they were elevated to the same plane as humans. Animals were held in such reverence that they were equal to humans. Another theme that was repeated many times was that out of respect for animals, they should not be captured and taken into the classroom for study. The theme “Look, Learn, and Leave Alone” was inviolate. It was even stressed in the teacher preparation section not to capture animals (including insects) for classroom study.
The source of these themes is hard to determine. Were they placed there by the guide’s author? How much influence did NAHEE have on the author or this curriculum? It is interesting to note that Are You A Good Kind Lion, the one poem that NAHEE contributed, contained a line that is the heart of the animal rights message: “Don’t hurt the animals for any reason.” Would that message tell first graders that it is morally wrong to eat animals?
Balance
Working with the California Biomedical Research Association, we took our concerns to the California State Board of Education. We were successful in deleting all the animal rights organizations and books as resources prior to the guide’s publication in 1994. We were also successful in deleting the NAHEE poem “Are You A Good Kind Lion.” Furthermore, the prohibition against capturing animals for classroom examination was replaced with a discussion on the proper methods of capturing and caring for animals.
Although our partial success was heartening, this episode graphically illustrates how close animal rights activists came to having their philosophy accepted as part of the nation’s largest and most influential humane and environmental education curricula. The educational community needs to be alerted to the hidden agenda of “animal protection” organizations. Local humane societies, APHE, and animal rights in schools.
Another source of concern is the local humane societies that have been hijacked and taken over by animal rights activists. They have also developed educational curricula with animal rights propaganda and have been taking it into the schools for many years.
The Association of Professional Humane Educators (formerly known as the Western Humane and Environmental Educators’ Association), a group that is often affiliated with HSUS and NAHEE, is comprised of education officials from at least 21 western humane societies and SPCAs, most of them located in California.
APHE provides a framework for these educators to network and share classroom material on animal rights along with humane and environmental themes. For example, on March 15-16, 1994, APHE (then known as WHEEA) held its annual meeting in San Diego, California. The keynote speaker was Kim Sturla of the Fund for Animals, a national animal rights organization. Two HSUS representatives were in attendance to promote KIND News and Adopt-a-Teacher programs.
The Packrat, the APHE Newsletter, is a bulletin board for animal rights educational material from a large number of animal rights groups such as the American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animals’ Agenda, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Rights Information Service, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Fund for Animals, HSUS, Last Chance for Animals, NAHEE, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PeTA Teachers Network, Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the United Coalition of Iditarod Animal Rights Volunteers.
Most humane societies have one or more education officers who go to schools and teach children about proper pet care, humane treatment of animals, endangered species, and environmentalism. Because most teachers perceive the local humane society to be an animal welfare organization, they are welcomed by the schools. APHE members take advantage of this relationship to introduce an animal rights message along with their regular presentations. For example, the Peninsula Humane Society of San Mateo, California, publishes an informative unit on endangered species. However, at the end of the unit, they urge students to read animal rights books, join animal rights organizations, write politicians about animal rights issues, sign petitions about animal rights issues, boycott specific companies that do product safety testing on animals, and boycott products made from animal skins, fur, or other parts. They also provide grossly misleading information on animal research.
Animal rights and New Age religion
If the Catholic Church had set out to indoctrinate public school children with a new moral system imbedded in a humane and environmental curriculum, there would have been a huge outcry and controversy. A religious cult is indoctrinating public school children, but there is little outcry or controversy because the religious overtones and the value system have been masked. The religion is called New Age; the value system is animal rights.
Thomas Berry, an ‘ecotheologian’ and the ‘spiritual guide’ for the HSUS Center for Respect of Life and the Environment, was one of several of the speakers at the HSUS 1992 annual meeting who focused on New Age themes of total reverence and respect for animals and the environment because the spirit of God was in the whole universe equally.
Although totally open about the spiritual and religious aspects of their movement in the annual meeting, HSUS is careful not to present its KIND News as part of a religious movement. In his book What Are They Trying to Do to Us? The Truth about the Animal Rights Movement and the New Age, Bernard Palmer illustrated that the animal rights movement takes on the fundamental tenets of the New Age religion. Furthermore, Rod and Patti Strand make a similar observation about the religious nature of animal rights in their book The Hijacking of the Humane Movement. Both books make the case that the energy that propels the movement is the faithful volunteers spreading the gospel of respect and sacred reverence for animals.
References
1. Morrison, Adrian R.; Biomedical Research and the Animal Rights Movement: A Contrast in Values, The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 4, P 204-208, 1993.
2. HSUS A Discussion ... Rights for Animals, HSUS pamphlet 1990.
3. Stephens, Martin L.; Alternatives to Current Uses of Animals in Research, Safety Testing, and Education: A Layman’s Guide. Published by HSUS, 1986.
4. Hoyt, John A.; Animals: It’s Their World Too, report of the president 1990, HSUS annual meeting, October 27, 1990.
5. Welborn, Robert F.; The Potential for the Institutional Animal Committee, HSUS News, Spring 1992.
6. Cleveland, Patrick H.; CFAAR/San Diego Special Report, December 9, 1992.
7. HSUS Annual Report, 1992
8. KIND Teacher, page 51 and 53, September 1991.
You already know, hit the ping list, please...ping
Who pays? The taxpayor does. Law suits are almost a form of fundraising for environmentalists.
http://www.publicinterestwatch.org/press_5_2_05.htm
May 2, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Lewis Fein
PHONE: (310) 472-0520
$ 1.1 Million Dollars in the Public Interest, or in Self-Interest?
Environmental Defense Center Takes in Over $1 Million Dollars in Attorney's Fees from Filing Lawsuits Against Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies
(Santa Barbara) ) - According to IRS tax documents recently obtained by Public Interest Watch (PIW), between 1997 and 2003, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), a Santa Barbara, California, based 501(c)(3) non-profit environmental law firm, captured over $1 million dollars in tax-free attorney's fees from settlement agreements stemming from lawsuits the organization filed on behalf of the public interest (see http://www.guidestar.org/partners/cadoj/docs.jsp?npoId=573284 ).
Unfortunately for the public, the majority of these lawsuits, based on cases listed by EDC, were filed against, and settled with, federal, state and local government entities. Suits listed, included, but were not limited to, four against the City of Santa Barbara, four against the County of San Luis Obispo, three against the United States Department of Interior, and two against the Environmental Protection Agency, all of which apparently used taxpayer dollars to pay EDC's attorney's fees as part of case settlements.
EDC, which "seeks attorney's fees in all cases filed", is not alone when it comes to demanding reimbursement on the taxpayer's dime. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have both sought attorney's fees when filing cases against government entities. Not surprisingly, this form of revenue collection has paid big dividends, often bringing in higher yields than charitable contributions from supporters.
Thus, "public interest" non-profit law firms, such as EDC, sock it to taxpayers twice, first by being allowed to operate their law firms tax-free, and second by collecting attorney's fees, tax-free, from the very people they are supposed to be representing, the public.
Clearly, this practice is ripe for government reform, but until legislation is enacted to prevent this type of activity, PIW challenges EDC, and every other non-profit public interest law firm who demands attorney's fees from taxpayer funded government entities, to operate like the majority of charities do, from charitable contributions, instead of litigated bounties.
Droughts would have no effect on this issue I am sure.
>>Growth will continue until certificates of water adequacies are stopped, Silver said.<<
Perhaps we need to close the water supply services out in the desert for the illegals.
IIRC, CBD's money largely comes from Pew and Turner.
That's the only way Liberal/Socialists can win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.