Subject: FW: SW BIODIVERSITY ALERT #107


Subject: SW BIODIVERSITY ALERT #107

     ******* SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT #107 ***********
       *                    12/18/97                      *
        *                                               *
         *  SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  *
          *                                           *
           *******************************************

1.  SUIT FILED TO STOP SALE OF TOXIC FISH IN LOS ANGELES-
    LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES PUT AT RISK BY GREEDY DISTRIBUTERS
2.  EDITORIAL: WOLVES NOT GRIZZLIES IN THE GILA HEADWATERS
3.  APPEALS COURT ENDS SW TIMBER/GRAZING INJUNCTION-
    ALLOWS U.S.F.S. TO CONTINUE OUTDATED LOGGING AND GRAZING

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

SUIT FILED TO STOP SALE OF TOXIC FISH IN LOS ANGELES-
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES PUT AT RISK BY GREEDY DISTRIBUTERS

The Southwest Center for Biological Diversity has filed suit to stop the
commercial sale of White Croaker (a.k.a. kingfish) caught off the heavily
contaminated shores of Los Angeles and Orange counties. Most commonly
sold in poor Asian and Latino communities, the fish is contaminated with
DDT and PCBs washed into its shallow coastal water habitat. Fish samples
are up to 1,000 more toxic than considered safe by the state.

Over 1800 metric tons of DDT have been discharged from Los Angeles County's
outfall pipe at White's Point on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in southern
California.  As a result, sediment deposit ranging from 2 inches to about 2
feet extends over most of the continental shelf from Point Fermin and Point
Vicente. It is estimated that the DDT contamination will remain at elevated
levels through the year 2100.

Senate Bill 1123, which would have directly outlawed the sale of white
croaker was vetoed by Govenor Pete Wilson, forcing the Southwest Center to
sue supermarket chains for violating California's toxic disclosure law. We
are seeking written agreements from distributers and merchants that they
will cease to sell white croaker, or post a multi-lingual warning signs
warning of DDT and PCB contamination.

The Southwest Center is represented by Babak Naficy, from the Law Offices
of Shawn Khorrami (Los Angeles).
     _____     _____     _____     _____

EDITORIAL: WOLVES NOT GRIZZLIES IN THE GILA HEADWATERS
Az Daily Star, editorial
Tuesday, 9 December 1997

It is inspiring to think of our wild places restored and all the driven-away
wild things brought back to roam free once more.

But let's not get carried away with our dreams of a primordial wilderness.
Wolves are one thing; grizzly bears quite another.

The wolf has a real chance in this state, and some full-moon night soon, in
the Blue Range of Arizona and the Gila Wilderness of New Mexico, the howls
of Mexican gray wolves may sound through the stands of Ponderosa pine and
echo down the rhyolite canyons of the creeks and rivers that feed the mighty
Gila.

The reintroduction of the gray wolf is more than a dream. Three wolf pens in
the Blue Range will have occupants in the next few weeks. In spring, federal
wildlife managers expect to release three mating pairs of wolves to the wild.

But even this modest and realistic plan to repopulate the wilderness with
wolves has drawn vehement protest from residents of nearby communities,
particularly from the ranchers who fear their calves will be killed and
eaten.

Civilization is much too near these wilderness areas to allow a complete
return to their primeval state. The resistance to wolves is being addressed
with promises of careful placement, close monitoring of the wolves' range
and a fund to compensate ranchers for lost livestock.

But why talk about reintroducing the more dangerous grizzly before the wolf
experiment has even begun?

The last Arizona grizzly was shot in the 1930s, according to Peter Galvin of
the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. Bringing the species back to
the Gila and the Blue Range would rectify that historical mistake, he said.
The group wants federal officials to begin a 10-year study of grizzly
reintroduction.

But if the grizzly couldn't survive man in the 1930s in Arizona and New
Mexico, when the region was much more sparsely settled, how could it do so
now?

The Blue and the Gila are wilderness areas, but the grizzlies' range would
be dotted with human settlements and used extensively for recreation.

The interface between humans and smaller, less aggressive black bears has
already been a problem in the natural areas of Arizona recently, most
notably on nearby Mount Lemmon, where problem bears are killed yearly.

Wildlife managers need to get a better handle on those problems before
reintroducing the more ferocious grizzly bear.

And the experiment with the Mexican gray wolf needs to succeed or fail on
its own merits and not be perceived as a foot in the door for later
reintroductions of other predators.

Let's forgo the growling about the grizzlies and concentrate on the howling
of the wolves.
     _____     _____     _____     _____

APPEALS COURT ENDS SW TIMBER/GRAZING INJUNCTION-
ALLOWS U.S.F.S. TO CONTINUE OUTDATED LOGGING AND GRAZING

On December 15, 1997, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if a
Forest Plan amendment specifically states that it only applies to future
actions, the Forest Service can not be compelled to revise ongoing timber
sales and grazing allotments to comply with the new amendment.

The ruling ends a seven month long injunction of approximatley 20 timber
sales and 715 grazing allotments in Arizona and New Mexico. Implementation
of the grazing portion of the injunction was delayed by the Forest Service
until Senators Domenici and Kyl could attach a rider to the Interior
Appropriations Bill forbiding the Forest Service from implementing it.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Kieran Suckling                               ksuckling@sw-center.org
Executive Director                            520.623.5252 phone
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity     520.623.9797 fax
http://www.sw-center.org                      pob 710, tucson, az 85702-710