NEWS

Voters oppose eminent domain The backlash against eminent domain is so great that two-thirds of Ohio voters would ban the government taking of private property, even for public projects such as roads. That's one finding of a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, just as state lawmakers were fleshing out the details of the most significant property rights bill in decades. Lawmakers are reacting to recent U.S. and Ohio supreme court rulings on the use of eminent domain for economic development - that is, taking property from one private owner to give it to another. "Rarely do we see numbers this lopsided," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Polling Institute at the Hamden, Conn. university, which conducts independent state-level polls in swing states. "Voters just do not like eminent domain."....
Eminent anger Two-thirds of Ohio voters would ban the use of public domain even for such public projects as roads, says a Quinnipiac University poll released last week. The press release summed up the poll's findings thusly: Ohio voters support 78 - 17 percent setting limits on government use of eminent domain. In other questions on this issue: * Voters oppose 65 - 32 percent using government's eminent domain power to take private property for public projects such as roads; * Voters oppose 82 - 14 percent using eminent domain to take property for economic development; * Voters say 50 - 30 percent that government has abused eminent domain in the past. Interestingly, opposition to the use of eminent domain for public use projects pulls a majority of support across Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- but is highest for Democrats at 67 percent, defying the stereotype that donkey-party voters are generally government-friendly. Hostility to the use of eminent domain for economic development is so overwhelming across the board that it should simply put the issue off the table for discussion by politicians....
Why Monsanto loves ethanol For some time, How the World Works has been convinced that the rush to biofuels will significantly boost the ongoing rollout of genetically modified organisms. There's just too much money at stake in the energy business for it to be otherwise. The popularity of the latest biotech crops is a perfect illustration of this. These seeds aren't cheap -- they are top-of-the-line products. But for well-financed farmers and industrial-scale agribusinesses aiming to cash in on ethanol demand, seed costs are not a significant barrier. It seems reasonable to expect, in the not-too-distant future, quadruple- and quintuple- and sextuple-stacked hybrids that do all kinds of fancy things such as incorporate herbicide resistance, targeted pesticides, and modifications that make the corn cheaper and easier to industrially transform into ethanol. As more and more modifications are incorporated into a single organism, our ability to understand and predict how wide-scale proliferation of those organisms will affect the greater environment will become even more difficult than it already is. So maybe "treadmill" isn't the best metaphor to describe the current dynamic. A rocket launch into territory unknown might offer a more appropriate analogy....
Grazing geese damaging north coast ranch lands Ranchers along the north coast have their hands full this year as they grapple with the growing Aleutian goose population. Nearly 100,000 of the geese have descended on lush North Coast pastures, devouring cultivated grass that ranchers rely on to fatten their cattle in the spring. "It's just like locusts," said Jay Russ, a fifth-generation cattle rancher in Ferndale, located about 20 miles south of Eureka. Russ claims the hungry grazing geese have cost him $40,000 to $60,000 in lost feed over the past five years. A late-season hunt provided the ranchers with some relief, when an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 geese were killed, but it is unclear whether such hunts will become a permanent solution. Damage by the geese to fertile grazing land between Humboldt Bay and the Mad River is estimated at $200,000 to $400,000 a year, according to Mitch Farro, projects manager for the Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association....
Montana may join Wyo wolf suit Some Democrats cried foul Tuesday over plans to send $150,000 to a Wyoming law firm so the Legislature can join a brewing lawsuit over the failure to remove wolves from the endangered species list. The House endorsed the plan to help the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd challenge the federal government over the wolf issue. Supporters said the lawsuit, not yet filed, will give the state a seat at the table as an anticipated decision to delist moves into the courtroom. Opponents said the lawsuit would be a waste of money since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is already working hard to delist wolves. They argued it is particularly wrong to pay a Wyoming law firm to do the work, and to send another $50,000 to beef up legislative staff to monitor the lawsuit. The House endorsed the bill to join the lawsuit on a 58-41 vote, with some Democrats joining Republican backers of the plan....
Wildlife group considers fate of grizzly payment program With Yellowstone-area grizzlies poised to come off the endangered species list, a conservation group is deciding what to do about its program to pay ranchers for livestock killed by the bears. Since 1999, Defenders of Wildlife has cut checks for about $9,500 for cows and sheep confirmed to have been killed by grizzlies in the Montana and Idaho portions of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Payments have been scant in recent years because of fewer reported losses in the two states. The group paid $210 in 2005 for one ewe killed by grizzlies and two in Idaho that were probably killed by grizzlies. There were no payments last year. Part of the decline was because fall foods for grizzlies were abundant this year, allowing the bears to stay out of low-lying areas where they're more apt to get into trouble with livestock. Also, a 74,000-acre sheep grazing allotment south of Big Timber was retired last year. There had been numerous conflicts with predators in the past....
Montana dream sours for some rural dwellers From day one, Kurt Voight knew there was a problem. Sixteen years later, Voight and some of his fellow subdivision residents still clash with a neighbor who allows his cattle to graze on their property. "We all understand and appreciate the fact that the openness of this country is due to the stewardship of ranchers," Voight said. "But we feel this guy is taking advantage of an antiquated law that was never intended to do this." Open grazing is not the only problem for residents of many of the area's rural subdivisions, but it's one that represents the age-old tug of war between private property rights, regulations and just plain good neighborliness....
Study Links Beef to Lower Sperm Count A new study suggests that men whose mothers ate lots of beef during pregnancy may have lower sperm counts than other men. The researchers say residues of hormones given to beef to promote growth may be a factor, but that's not certain. The beef industry disputes that theory. "Nothing from this study changes the fact that during pregnancy, naturally nutrient-rich beef is a vital part of a healthy, wholesome diet for a mother and her child," Mary K. Young, MS, RD, tells WebMD in an emailed statement. Young is the executive director of nutrition for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA). Fifty-one moms reported eating beef more than seven times per week during pregnancy. The average sperm concentration for their adult sons was 24% lower than men whose moms ate beef less often during pregnancy, the study shows. In addition, about 17% of men whose moms ate beef more than seven times weekly during pregnancy had sperm concentrations in the "subfertile" range, the researchers note. However, all of the men fathered children without medical treatment, according to the study....

Experiencing some internet access/performance issues...will try to get the rest of the news up tomorrow.