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ALLOWS U.S.F.S. TO CONTINUE OUTDATED LOGGING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