OPINION/COMMENTARY

Joint Letter to House and Senate Leadership on Opening ANWR to Energy Exploration

The undersigned organizations are dismayed that an obstructionist bloc in the first session of the 109th Congress was able to thwart the will of majorities in both the House and the Senate to enact legislation to open a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas exploration. We urge you to move budget reconciliation legislation (and any other vehicle that can overcome the procedural obstacles that will no doubt be used again to try to block the majority in both chambers) as soon as possible to accomplish this important goal and pledge that we will strongly support your efforts. We believe that there are several important reasons to open ANWR. First, contrary to claims by environmental pressure groups that the oil and gas ANWR potentially contains are only a few “drops in the bucket” and that oil companies are not interested in exploring ANWR’s coastal plain, the U. S. Geological Survey’s mean estimate of economically recoverable oil and gas reserves under the coastal plain of ANWR is 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil. Such an amount would increase proven U. S. crude oil reserves by 50% and is equivalent to approximately a quarter century of current imports from Saudi Arabia, one of our top foreign suppliers. The USGS estimate was based on assuming oil priced at $30 a barrel; assuming $60 a barrel would give a much higher estimate of economically recoverable reserves. Second, environmental pressure groups contradict themselves by arguing that opening ANWR would be nothing but a payoff to “Big Oil”. If it contains little oil, then it isn’t much of a payoff. If it does contain billions of barrels of oil, then oil companies will bid for the right to explore. It is estimated that the winners will initially pay several billion dollars for exploration contracts....

SKI OPERATOR ASKS TO JOIN IN OPPOSING ENVIRO LAWSUIT

A ski operator that has provided helicopter skiing in Teton County, Wyoming, for decades moved today to intervene in a lawsuit filed by several environmental groups challenging a U.S. Forest Service permit issued to the operator. High Mountain Heli-Skiing filed its motion with the Idaho federal district court asking that it be permitted to become involved in the lawsuit as a party defendant, that is, in support of the Forest Service’s decision. High Mountain maintains that the lawsuit by the environmental groups asserting that the Forest Service permit interferes with wilderness study areas is without merit and that the decision by the Forest Service complied full with federal law and regulations. High Mountain believes that the case may not be heard properly in Idaho. “This lawsuit was filed in Idaho and not in one of the only two locations in which it could have been filed legally because the environmental groups sought a more favorable forum for their groundless complaint, that is, a state that falls within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction,” said William Perry Pendley of Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represents High Mountain. “We are confident this case will be removed as the Forest Service requests and, after a full hearing on the merits, our client will prevail and continue to operate.” High Mountain Heli-Skiing began in the Bridger-Teton and Caribou-Targhee National Forests in 1974, providing heli-skiing under a Special Use Permit since 1977 in a 70-square-mile area. Previously, High Mountain operated in a larger area but, with passage of the 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act, terrain in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness and the Gros Ventre Wilderness was removed from the permit area, reducing that area by a third. Today, 61 percent of High Mountain’s permit is in the Palisades Wilderness Study Area....

New FBI Smoking Guns Point To PETA

In December the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) made a big public splash by unveiling documents obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under a Freedom of Information Act request. At the time, the ACLU released only a few dozen pages from its FBI treasure trove, selected to bolster its case that the federal government was spying on groups including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) despite what it called "a lack of evidence" that PETA was "engaging in or supporting violent action." But during the past few weeks, the ACLU's website has been quietly updated to include more than 200 additional pages of the FBI's files on PETA. And this new material indicates a solid connection between PETA and the animal-rights movement's violent underbelly. The complete set of pages, finally available on the ACLU's website (look for a link titled "Full set of PETA documents"), includes some disclosures that PETA will not be happy about -- and which indicate that the FBI knows exactly what it's doing. If you don't relish the thought of wading through 227 pages of heavily redacted FBI files, we've collected the most interesting material on our AnimalScam.com website. Click here to read the FBI's conclusions that (among other things) PETA recruits interns from overseas for "the sole purpose of committing criminal acts."....

Environmental Justice?

Did you know that a court can mandate a human to give an apology to an animal after a conviction of endangered species "harrassment?" ecoEnquirer: A peaceful Sunday of fishing turned sour for Josh Williams recently. The problems started when Mr. Williams hooked a nice smallmouth bass, and a bald eagle took notice. While the eagle swooped in, attempting to catch the bass in its talons, Mr. Williams was observed by a Fish and Wildlife Service officer trying to scare the eagle away by throwing stones at it. The FWS officer testified in U.S. District Court of South Dakota that Mr. Williams had clearly violated one of the Endangered Species Act's prohibited activities that specifically makes it illegal to "...harass....an endangered or threatened species without a permit from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior." The judge agreed, finding the man guilty of a misdemeanor violation of the Act. The judge was lenient in sentencing, however, requiring only that the man apologize to the eagle. Mr. Williams expressed remorse, stating that the eagle would be welcome to help him fish anytime it wanted to. The eagle had no comment....

UPDATE: The last story is a hoax. Read the comments for further info.