Two days ago I wrote a bit about Dr. Jack Kevorkian. A fellow Zaadster, Tia, was kind enough to mention that perhaps a petition might help convince the "powers that be" to release him from prison early. Thanks to Tia's great suggestion, I started a petition today!!!! Whether or not you believe in physician-assisted suicide, the most important issue I see is that Dr. Jack Kevorkian offered us a choice at the end of life. Having been a hospice social worker for many years, I have witnessed the pain and suffering that sometimes is part of the dying process. Mind you, I've also seen some people die a "good" death; peaceful and loving.

The work that Dr. Jack Kevorkian conducted prompted many to review our end-of-life care, to realize that physicians, and medical professionals in general, were in serious need of more education.

If you'd like to support the man responsible for helping so many out of pain and suffering, please sign this petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/761877453

Thank you!!!

Sincerely,
Kriss

IRVING, Texas -- With his company having earned $8.4 billion during the first quarter, Rex Tillerson appears to be in an enviable position as he presides over the first Exxon Mobil Corp. annual meeting since he became chairman and CEO. That huge profit won't necessarily shield Tillerson from shareholders' criticism, particularly on the oil company's environmental record.

But Tillerson won't be a novice at fielding complaints about Exxon when shareholders meet in Dallas today -- for months he's been hearing rebukes from public officials and private citizens about the soaring cost of gasoline.

In an interview, Tillerson said he understands nerves are raw about gas prices pushing past $3 a gallon while his company consistently posts record quarterly profits. And he knows lawmakers are simply responding to voter concern when they demand accountability at a Senate judiciary committee as happened in March.

But, "I don't apologize for our success," Tillerson said.

And now, a bit about that pesky little problem of that darn oil spill.. You'd think with those amazingly high profits they've got, they'd happily pay to clean up their mess!
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/us/02spill.html?ex=1306900800&en=978bce7a02fa3914&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
June 2, 2006

$92 Million More Is Sought for Exxon Valdez Cleanup

By FELICITY BARRINGER

WASHINGTON, June 1 - When the Justice Department and the State of Alaska reached their $900 million court settlement with the Exxon Corporation over the environmental damages caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, they agreed that, if unforeseeable damages occurred later, the two governments had 15 years to ask for $100 million more.

On Thursday, with the deadline approaching, the governments exercised this clause. They announced in a statement that they would seek $92 million from Exxon Mobil to clean up stubborn patches of oil, whose most toxic components, they say, have not dissipated since the spill in 1989.

Federal and state lawyers said in statements that they believed the lingering oil was still interfering with the recovery of animals in the area. The worries, environmentalists say, are focused on species that frequent the intertidal areas of Prince William Sound, like clams, mussels and harlequin ducks.

With this action, "we are aggressively seeking to restore natural resource damages unforeseen at the time of the 1991 settlement," said Sue Ellen Wooldridge, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department, in a statement. "Our goal throughout this process has been to pursue all scientifically and legally appropriate means of restoration."

While the oil can be found along several miles of beach, tying its effects to the slow recovery of some species may not be easy, one environmentalist said.

"No one doubts there is ongoing damage," said Eleanor Huffines, of the Alaska office of the Wilderness Society. "The challenge is that the ocean is so dynamic that it will be a hard thing to do to make the connection. But since this has been the most well-studied area since the spill, they have been able to document the lack of recovery."

Mark Boudreaux, the media relations manager for Exxon Mobil, focused on this uncertainty in a statement responding to the action. A link between the remaining oil and effects on wildlife, Mr. Boudreaux said, "is no more than a hypothesis." He added, "Nothing we have seen so far, however, indicates that this request for further funding from Exxon is justified."

Of the $900 million paid by Exxon, $145 million remains in a trust fund administered by a council representing the federal and state agencies and local groups. "If there were any matter in Prince William Sound that needed restoration or repair," Mr. Boudreaux said, "it was the trustees' duty to use this money to remedy the problem."

Along with the request for the $92 million, which may be decreased or increased to the maximum $100 million after negotiations, the state and federal agencies gave Exxon a blueprint for how the restoration should proceed.

The request for additional money had the support of Alaska's two senators, Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski, Republicans who had encouraged Exxon to provide the extra $100 million without the formal "reopener" process set by the 1991 settlement.

In March 1989, the Exxon Valdez supertanker, with an inebriated captain, ran aground on Bligh Reef, ruptured and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into the sound, contaminating about 900 miles of shoreline.

The damage to the fishing industry and to native subsistence hunting lasted for years. The herring population, a crucial link between the tiny plankton at the bottom of the food chain and the larger predators at the top, crashed four years after the spill. Of the $145 million remaining from Exxon's original payment, a significant part has been set aside to compensate herring fishermen.

Exxon Mobil continues to appeal a separate punitive damage award of $4.5 billion resulting from the spill.

The move to push for the extra money comes at a significant moment in the political life of Alaska, a state whose economy has been oil-dependent for three decades, but which is also encountering a steady decline in its share of oil revenues because of declining production of North Slope oil.

A new natural gas pipeline promises to be a source of income. But how ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and BP, the energy industry's three major players here, will be taxed on overall levels of energy production is the subject of intense debate in a special session of the Legislature.

The open question is whether the industry, if it sees those tax discussions in the Legislature going too far against its interests, will abandon the pipeline, leaving the state without these potential new revenues.

So even though the legal deadline set the timetable for the state and federal governments' actions Thursday, it is an awkward moment to push for more money from Exxon Mobil. The company, in the statement of Mr. Boudreaux, made no allusion to its other major political and legal struggle in Alaska.

Today, our free and open Internet allows individuals and organizations to speak truth to power. However, big telecom companies like AT&T and Verizon are currently spending tens of millions of dollars to push legislation that would abandon the "First Amendment of the Internet" -- a principle called network neutrality.

Without network neutrality, AT&T, Verizon and others will be free to slow down and block emails and Web sites they don't like -- effectively silencing the voices of critics or people who don't share their politics. With net neutrality, entrepreneurs and innovators have a level playing field.

Fortunately, Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Dorgan (D-North Dakota) have introduced S. 2197, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006. This bill will encode network neutrality into law by prohibiting telephone and cable companies from charging information providers premium fees on content. It will also prohibit preferential pricing for access tiers, and has a meaningful enforcement mechanism to deter network discrimination.

This is our last, best chance at preserving net neutrality -- so take action today!

Call to action

Deadline: June 20, 2006

Federal officials have proposed designating nearly all of northwest Washington's inland waters - about 2,500 square miles - as critical habitat for killer whales, the first major development since the creatures were listed as endangered last year.

Following a public comment period, the habitat designation could become official by the end of the year, the National Marine Fisheries Service said Friday in a news release. It would mean that within the outlined area, no federal activities can take place unless officials demonstrate that the habitat will not be harmed.

The proposed area encompasses parts of Haro Strait, the waters around the San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and all of Puget Sound except for Hood Canal, because there is little evidence the orcas swim there. Eighteen military sites covering nearly 112 square miles of habitat are exempt.

"It looks like we're getting the tools in place to provide orcas with the protection that hopefully will get them to the point of recovery," said Patti Goldman, an attorney with the environmental law firm Earthjustice.

But Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound, and Fred Felleman, of Ocean Advocates, questioned whether the proposed area is enough: Besides military areas, it excludes any waters less than 20 feet deep. They said shorelines are crucial to the health of the ecosystem overall, and in particular to salmon - the primary food source of Puget Sound's orcas. Herring, which the salmon eat, live in shallow subtidal zones.

"This is a major gap," Fletcher said. "When something is proposed that might screw up the habitat of Puget Sound" - a dock for a construction project, for instance - "it's on the shoreline. The habitat of the salmon is as important as the waters where the orcas actually swim themselves."

Felleman said that overall, he was pleased with the proposal, but that he would like to see the waters off the state's western coast designated as critical habitat as well: That's where the orcas spend at least some of the winter, he said, and it's also where they could be troubled by Navy activities.

Fisheries Service spokesman Brian Gorman invited Fletcher and Felleman to raise such points during the public comment period.

"People are encouraged to point out where they think we need a little more work," he said.

The federal agency's 44-page report on the proposal notes that the designation of critical habitat could lead to revised limits for commercial salmon fishermen and new standards for sewer and stormwater discharge.

The "southern resident" population of orcas in Puget Sound - believed to have numbered 140 or more in the last century - has suffered several major periods of decline since the 1960s, when the whales were caught for aquariums. The population rebounded to 97 in the 1990s, then declined to 79 in 2001. Currently, there are 90 whales, with several calves recently born.

Pollution and a decline in prey are believed to be their biggest threats, though stress from whale-watch boats and underwater sonar tests by the Navy are also concerns.

The National Marine Fisheries Service initially refused to list the whales under the Endangered Species Act, finding that they were not distinct from other orcas around the world - a finding based on a classification of the species written in 1758. In 2002, eight environmental groups sued, and U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik ordered the agency to reconsider, using updated science.

The fisheries service eventually agreed that the Puget Sound orcas needed protection, leading to the listing in November. Farm and property rights groups have challenged the listing in federal court in Seattle, saying it could lead to "needless water and land-use restrictions on Washington farms, especially those located near rivers inhabited by salmon," the orcas' prime food source.

The fisheries service also said it expects to release its draft orca recovery plan for public comment within the next month.

___

On the 'Net:

Fisheries Service: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov

Pro-whaling nations look set to command a majority of the votes when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) annual meeting begins on Friday.

Several countries which appear likely to vote with the pro-whaling bloc have joined the body in recent weeks.

UK marine affairs minister Ben Bradshaw said he is "very concerned".

A pro-whaling majority could lead to the scrapping of conservation and welfare programmes, though not a return to full-scale commercial whaling.

That would need three-quarters of delegates at the meeting in St Kitts & Nevis to vote in favour, which is extremely unlikely.

But a simple majority would be enough to end IWC work on issues which Japan believes to be outside its remit, such as welfare and killing methods, whale-watching and anything concerning small cetaceans such as dolphins.

"For the first time since the 1970s, the IWC would be under the control of the whalers," commented Vassily Papastavrou, a marine biologist working with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw).

"Japan has said that it intends to undermine decisions which protect whales and stop the conservation work of the IWC," he told the BBC News website.

Divided world

The potential for collision is higher at this year's meeting than it has been for decades.

Formed in 1946, the IWC's original purpose was to regulate commercial whaling; and after it became obvious that some species were being depleted to the verge of extinction, that regulation took the most robust form possible: a global moratorium.

Norway made a formal objection to the ban and has continued to hunt, though catching radically fewer numbers than a century ago. Japan, and more recently Iceland, hunt under an IWC ruling which allows nations to catch whales for "scientific research".

Both have stepped up the size of their annual hunts in recent years, with the 2006 catch on target to exceed 2,000, the largest take since the introduction of the moratorium in 1986.

Pro-whaling nations insist that a limited return to commercial hunting is possible; stocks of some species are high enough, they maintain, charging that the IWC has become an organisation dedicated to preventing whaling, contrary to its purpose.

At the IWC's foundation is supposed to be sound science; arguments such as which stocks are sufficiently robust to hunt are in theory answered on a strict scientific basis.

But there are huge variations in estimates of minke whales, the species currently most hunted, which makes it almost impossible to set global catch limits.

The scientific process has also become mired in politics, with decade-long discussions on a mechanism called the Revised Management Scheme, designed to facilitate a return to limited commercial whaling, breaking down earlier this year.

The anti-whaling bloc is now led informally by Australia, New Zealand and Britain, with the US a major ally

Within the last year this group has co-ordinated letters of diplomatic protest to Norway and Japan, signed by 12 and 17 countries respectively.

"They are losing the argument, internationally and domestically," said Ben Bradshaw.

"None of the pro-whaling nations have markets for the meat; young Japanese, Icelanders and Norwegians don't eat it, consumption is falling."

This argument is countered by organisations supportive of whalers and whaling, such as Norway's High North Alliance.

"We think there is growing support for whaling in principle and in practice," said its secretary Rune Frovik.

"Whales belong to the animal kingdom. In some cultures they eat frogs, others don't; Hindus don't eat beef, that's their choice, but they don't try to prohibit the rest of the world from eating it.

"And we think that you can't find anything more environmentally friendly than whale meat - this is an animal which lived in nature, we are harvesting nature's surplus and you don't have to destroy nature to do that."

Horse trading

Whatever the moral rights and wrongs, it seems like that after years of trying the pro-whaling bloc may have built itself a working majority this time.

The run-up to each IWC meeting sees the opposing groups of nations trying to bring supportive new members into the organisation.

But an accurate tally will only be possible when the Commission convenes on Friday in St Kitts; only then will it become clear which countries have sent delegates and paid their subscriptions, entitling them to vote.

"[The pro-whaling nations] had a majority last year on paper," said Ben Bradshaw, "but because some of their allies failed to turn up or pay their dues we won all the votes - but one of them by only one vote."

The fallout of a pro-whaling majority would be, in Mr Bradshaw's words, "international uproar".

How far the anti-whaling leaders would be prepared to go diplomatically against Japan, Iceland and Norway, with whom they have so much common ground on issues other than whaling, is a moot point.

There is talk of action aimed at the tourism industries of countries which have recently supported whaling, especially the small Caribbean states such as this year's host, St Kitts and Nevis.

A delegate from one of the anti-whaling nations told the BBC News website there would not be an organised boycott, but the word would be put out that certain nations which portray themselves as holiday destinations resplendent with natural beauty had supported the killing of whales.

Wed Jun 14, 8:09 PM ET 

Toxic chemicals are harming Arctic animals including polar bears, beluga whales, seals and seabirds, the environmental group WWF said on Thursday.

It said pollutants such as flame retardants, pesticides and fluorinated chemicals made Arctic wildlife vulnerable to health problems including immune suppression and hormone disturbances.

"We can no longer ignore the proof that chemicals are damaging the health of wild animals," said Samantha Smith, director of the Swiss-based group's international arctic program.

The WWF, formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund, said the chemical contamination of the Arctic threatened the survival of many of the region's animal species, who also faced possible habitat and food supply loss due to climate change.

It appealed for "urgent and significant strengthening" of European Union legislation designed to protect people and the environment from the adverse effects of chemicals found in products like paint, detergents, cars and computers.

The bill, known by the acronym REACH, has drawn criticism from the United States and other countries who say its provisions could hurt trade and be hard to implement.

Among health effects, the WWF said the immune systems of polar bears had been disrupted and there were signs of weaker bone growth. Bears in the Barents Sea with high levels of toxic PCBs suffered disruptions to thyroid hormones.

"The bodies of some belugas from the St. Lawrence estuary in Canada are so contaminated that their carcasses are treated as toxic waste," it said, adding that chemicals such as flame retardants were compounding problems caused by older pollutants.

The WWF said its report focused on documented health problems in Arctic creatures, building on a report in February highlighting the high levels of pollutants in the Arctic.

The Arctic is far from industrial centers but many long-lasting chemicals get swept north by winds and ocean currents and build to damaging levels in fatty tissues of creatures in the region.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters

Whales are still in danger. Since a global ban on whaling in 1985, Japan has continued to kill whales in the name of "scientific research." Yet legitimate scientists agree: there's no need to kill whales in order to study them when non-lethal methods already exist.

In fact, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has clearly stated it does not need the data obtained from killing whales: passing resolutions critical of Japan's research whaling program forty-one times!

Yet Japanese whalers continue to kill whales in horribly cruel fashion, harpooning them with explosive tips and then dragging them onto whale ships. Japan actually sells the meat from this "research" to restaurants. And now Japan is increasing the slaughter: doubling the number of whales killed in an international marine mammal sanctuary.

Unless they are stopped now, Japan will launch a return to full-scale industrial whaling; the last of which once drove whales to the brink of extinction. Only the tremendous resources and clout of the United States has a chance to stop Japan from destroying the world's whales.

Please sign the petition asking President Bush to oppose Japan's bid for permanent membership into the United Nations Security Council until they comply with international laws protecting whales.

By Michael Christie June 16, 2006

Japan suffered a resounding defeat on Friday at the International Whaling Commission, calming fears among conservationists that might finally win enough support in the world body to start attacking a ban on whaling.

The commission voted against two proposals by Japan, one for secret ballots that it said would allow Caribbean and Pacific nations to back its pro-whaling stance without fear of reprisal, and another to prevent the IWC from discussing the fate of dolphins and porpoises as well as whales.

Anti-whaling countries led by Australia, Britain, New Zealand and South Africa, and environmental groups, breathed a sigh of relief that their darkest fears -- of a whaling body dominated by pro-whaling Japan -- had not come about.

"So far we have managed to dodge the harpoon," said Joth Singh, director of wildlife and habitat protection for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, at the IWC's June 16-20 meeting in the Caribbean island of St. Kitts and Nevis.

Japan has sought for years to overturn the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and had been expected to be closer than ever this year to securing a majority in the IWC.

While a majority alone would not be enough to end the ban, credited with saving the great whales from extinction, it would have allowed Japan to turn the IWC away from protection and back into an organization that regulates whale hunting.

Environmental group Greenpeace said Friday's votes were "a victory for the whales, but no cause for complacency."

"We cannot continue year after year to see the fate of the whales hang by a thread," added Greenpeace International spokesman Mike Townsley.

Japan has abided by the moratorium on commercial whaling but uses a loophole that allows for scientific whaling. Its fleets brought back 850 minke whales from Antarctic waters last season and 10 fin whales, and it plans to hunt humpbacks.

Iceland also conducts scientific whaling while Norway, the only nation to defy the international ban, has set its hunters a quota this year of 1,052 minke whales, a small species whose meat is eaten as steaks.

'SAVING WHALES'

Japan's alternate commissioner, Joji Morishita, said he was not surprised at how the votes had gone but was disappointed that the IWC had decided to maintain a fractious status quo.

"These whole meetings are a waste of time," he said.

The United States, regarded by both sides as a moderating voice, warned that other votes in the IWC meeting could still go Japan's way, and lamented that the acrimonious divide between pro- and anti-whaling countries had not been resolved.

"The bottom line is we got to save whales and we're not saving whales right now," Bill Hogarth, director of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, told Reuters, referring to the whales caught under science programs.

"For the future of the IWC and for the future of saving whales we need to make some progress," Hogarth said.

Japan and other whaling nations like Norway and Iceland almost got a simple majority at the annual IWC meeting a year ago in South Korea, but some allies failed to pay their dues and could not vote and others did not turn up.

Anti-whaling countries argue that whale-watching is more lucrative than killing them, and that the majestic creatures still need protection.

But Japan and its allies say some species of whales have recovered, and can be hunted in a sustainable manner. The say science should decide, not emotion.

"There are enough whales for those who want to watch them and for those who want to eat them," Morishita said in a briefing paper. "The situation is not different from a farm tour with a BBQ lunch."

The ice-covered mountaintops are shrouded by fog. A stream gushes against the rocks on a headlong rush to the lake. High above the deserted visitors' parking lot, an elk stares at a lone hiker.Glacier National Park is an island, a sanctuary from the outside world.For how long?To the west, subdivisions, vacation homes and large chain stores march toward its borders. To the north, bulldozers pause for the winter before pushing deeper through the forests to a planned coal mine in the Canadian Flathead River Valley. To the south, an emotional debate rages over whether to allow oil and gas interests to explore a sacred Blackfoot Indian plot. From above, gradual warming continues to nibble away at the park's famed glaciers. Once as many as 150, they barely number 35 today. "If this keeps up, we may be looking at the National Park Formerly Known as Glacier," said Steve Thompson, a Montana program manager for the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association. Glacier is not alone. An Associated Press review finds the national parks are facing unprecedented pressures inside and outside their borders from population growth, homeland security concerns and Americans' insatiable desires for conveniences such as hotels, restaurants, stores, cell phones and vacation homes.

DEVELOPMENT INSIDE PARKS

Within their boundaries, the parks are generally calm, placid and among the world's most beautiful places. The National Park Service said 95 percent of visitors rate their experience as good or excellent. Nonetheless, 30 cellular phone towers have been erected inside parks; one is in view of Yellowstone's famed Old Faithful geyser. At Georgia's Kennesaw Mountain, an emergency radio communications tower has been constructed above Civil War cannons. At Arizona's Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, officials have built an $18 million, 30-mile steel-and-concrete vehicle barrier to slow illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Fifteen sea and lake parks have acquiesced to recreational enthusiasts and are allowing Jet Skis and other personal watercraft, or are expected to do so. At the Grand Canyon in Arizona, the clatter of tourist helicopters and whine of planes compete with the rush of the river, the warbling of birds and the whispers of the breeze.

BURGEONING OUTSIDE PRESSURES

Just outside park borders, the pressures are more dramatic from construction, population explosions, pollution, exotic species - even illegal aliens. An AP analysis of census data shows that more than 1.3 million people since 1990 have moved into counties surrounding six of the best-loved parks: Gettysburg, Everglades, Glacier, Yellowstone, Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains. The average number of people per square mile in those counties has grown by one-third. The four urban counties around the Florida Everglades show the most dramatic gains. But even in the remote areas of Glacier, the number of people per square mile has risen from eight in 1990 to 11 in 2005. Likewise, park visitation has soared from 79 million in 1960 to 273 million today. Pollution that has drifted scores of miles into parks is affecting visitors, plant life and wildlife. Last year, the air breathed by park visitors exceeded eight-hour safe levels of ozone 150 times in 13 parks, from California to Virginia. Overall, air at one-third of parks monitored by the Park Service continues to worsen even as the government puts in place pollution controls aimed at clearing the air by 2064. Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee and North Carolina, the most frequently visited park, has air quality similar to that of Los Angeles. Many others, including Shenandoah in Virginia, Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, Sequoia and Kings Canyon in California and Acadia in Maine also suffer reduced views and damage to natural resources, mostly from pollutants from coal-fired power plants. Foreign species of plants, animals, bugs and worms that travel via vehicles and visitors now invade 2.6 million acres of national parkland and are destroying natural resources. The Mexican border and homeland security demands pose their own pressure. As many as 1,000 aliens and drug smugglers pour into Arizona's Organ Pipe daily, diverting 75 percent of rangers' time to the problem, superintendent Kathy Billings said. The crush of human traffic has driven the endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope and threatened pygmy owl from their habitats, while leaving a trail of ravaged vegetation and human excrement. "Some areas, the smell of the human waste just hits you," Billings said recently. "It's overwhelming right now and it's not safe for our staff to go out and start a cleanup." Massive new water demand from explosive population growth is draining water aquifers that affect parks. In Florida, the fast-draining Everglades are affected by an average of 900 new Florida residents a day who create a daily new demand for 200,000 gallons of water, the park service said. The Devil's Hole pupfish, a teaspoon-sized fish in the Nevada desert of Death Valley National Park, is the impetus for recurring complaints from park officials against sprawling development in southern Nevada. Park officials link the incremental decline in the water level of the endangered fish's rock-pool habitat to pumping of the interconnected aquifers that quench the region's thirst. The park awaits money from Washington to determine which part of the deep aquifers affect Devil's Hole and the 38 adult pupfish it holds.

BLEMISHED VISTAS

The changes in the outside world are becoming more visible inside the nation's 390 parks, marring once unblemished vistas. Vacation homes now dot the shores lining Acadia and the mountains that border the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Subdivisions have sprouted up around hallowed Civil War sites such as Manassas Battlefield Park in Virginia. Convenience stores, strip malls and shopping centers line the roads to many parks. Traffic piles up, aggravating visitors and residents alike. Pollution has diminished the average daytime visibility from 90 miles to less than 25 miles at Eastern parks, and in the West from 140 miles to between 35 miles and 90 miles, the Environmental Protection Agency said. John Bunyak, branch chief in the Park Service Air Resources Division, said visibility is expected to improve in the coming decades with new regional haze regulations. Even the parks' famed views of starry skies are in jeopardy. Nighttime lights, beaming from cities and towns 200 miles away from parks such as Mount Rainier in Washington state and Yosemite in California, reduce star visibility and can affect nocturnal wildlife. In urban regions, including Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in California, visitors can only see a few hundred stars instead of the 8,000 that would be visible in pristine conditions. "If there's no place that is clear and clean, if there's no place that is dark and starry, where does that leave us?" asks Chad Moore, program manager for the National Park Service's Night Sky Team. "If we can't protect the best parts of America in national parks, then we're certainly not going to be able to protect them anywhere else."

AMERICANS SPLIT

Americans are split on park development. More than 40 percent favor increasing development inside parks, such as cell towers and snowmobile trails, an AP-Ipsos poll found. One-third favored increasing developments such as resort hotels and residential subdivisions outside park boundaries. Joe Westbrook, a coal miner in Corbin, Ky., said he occasionally drives through the heavily forested federal lands in eastern Kentucky and sees missed opportunities for development. "Folks have got to go some place," he said. "If they want to develop it, I'd have no problem with it." Across the continent near Salem, Ore., Jessie Hankins, 22, said a cross-country drive that included a stop at Yellowstone convinced him that parks ought to be kept free of development. "To me, the parks ought to be enjoyed for the natural things that make them what they are," Hankins said.

LITTLE MOMENTUM FOR CHANGE

With war, terrorism and budget pressures, there is little pressure in Washington for buffering the parks from outside development. Lynn Scarlett, the recent acting Interior secretary, said it would be futile to try to create artificial barriers to protect parks from the outside world. Instead, she said, the government needs to work with state, local and private landowners. "Nature itself," she said, "knows no boundaries." Park officials found themselves in a firestorm when a draft the revised blueprint for operating national parks was leaked last year. Critics saw in its omissions and word changes an effort to expand recreational opportunities at a cost to preservation. The director of the National Park Service, Fran Mainella, said officials were simply trying to address new issues such as homeland security and computer technology but concedes the process could have been handled better. A newer draft scratches most of the controversial language, according to park officials who have worked on it. "When the issue is between conservation and use, conservation will predominate," Mainella said. The administration signaled its commitment to preservation this month by creating the nation's newest national marine preserve - a 1,400-mile chain of islands northwest of Hawaii that's larger than all other national parks combined.

A DIFFICULT BALANCING ACT

In some cases, park officials have been able to balance the demands of visitors with the demands of progress. For instance, park superintendents increasingly rely on shuttle buses and vans to reduce traffic inside parks. But superintendents are mostly powerless to control outside growth, which brings inevitable costs inside the parks. Alaska's Denali National Park, more than 4,000 miles from the Park Service's Washington headquarters, was once among the nation's most isolated. Today, it borders a booming resort area nicknamed Glitter Gulch. The number of hotel rooms has doubled, visitors are staying longer and park rangers are diverted to help local law enforcement. Ambulance runs grew 35 percent last year alone. "In the height of the summer we are in a reactive mode responding to emergencies and incidents," said Elwood Lynn, assistant park superintendent for operations. "We have very little time to do routine patrols which translates into very little time for positive interaction with our visitors." The pressures from pollution and invasive species illustrate the limits of what parks can solve. The Park Service is required by law to aggressively protect air quality. But since 2001, it has appealed just one pollution permit while reviewing some 50 industrial plant applications annually. Park air quality specialists say they do persuade plants to install better technology or reduce emissions, but state and local jurisdictions approve the permits. "Our hands are tied," said Bunyak, the service's air pollution expert. "We don't have any control over external sources." Invading species likewise threaten native plants and animals. Cheatgrass chokes streams in Zion National Park in Utah. Exotic deer are proliferating in Point Reyes National Seashore in California. The noisy and voracious Puerto Rican coqui frog has made forays into Volcanoes National Park in Hawaii. Researchers believe anglers have introduced nonnative earthworms into Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota. The earthworms change the soil, which changes the trees, which affects water that flows into lakes. Invasive species often proliferate quickly; eliminating them is expensive and labor intensive. In some cases, it requires hand removal of trees or plants and then chemical treatment of stumps and roots.

THE FUTURE

The encroachment shows no signs of diminishing. Scenic surroundings make for desirable real estate, uncertain oil supplies keep new coal-fired power plants coming and at least some tourists continue to demand conveniences in the wild. National parks also are at the mercy of private "inholders," owners of parcels within park boundaries who could develop their land because the park lacks money to buy it. Likewise, parks face development on their fringes. A casino is proposed within cannon range of a historic Gettysburg battlefield. Several hundred new homes are approved for construction along the scenic New River Gorge National River in West Virginia. Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks Conservation Association, said parks often are viewed as narrators of the American story. "The parks are beginning to tell another story as well: the story of funding shortfall, the story of very poor air quality, the story of declining health of the ecological and cultural resources of the park," he said.

Associated Press writer Rita Beamish reported from California.

The International Whaling Commission meeting backed a resolution calling for the eventual return of commercial whaling by a majority of just one vote.

Japan said the outcome was "historic", but it does not mean a lifting of the 1986 ban - that would need support from three-quarters of the commission.

Anti-whaling countries say they will challenge the decision.

Conservation groups have expressed dismay, with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) saying anti-whaling nations needed to work harder to prevent the ban eventually being overturned.

The resolution declared: "The moratorium, which was clearly intended as a temporary measure, is no longer necessary."

It was tabled by six Caribbean nations, including St Kitts and Nevis, where the annual IWC meeting is being held.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 33 to 32, with one member - China - abstaining.

Although the ban aimed at protecting the endangered species is still in place, there is no doubt commercial hunting is a step closer, the BBC's Richard Black in St Kitts says.

'Whalers' club'

Ifaw spokesman Joth Singh described the decision as a "wake-up call" for countries which claimed they cared for whales.

After the vote, Brazil and New Zealand said they would challenge the resolution.

"This is the most serious defeat the conservation cause has ever suffered at the IWC," New Zealand Conservation Minister Chris Carter told AFP news agency.

"It has been a significant diplomatic victory for Japan."

Some conservationists have singled out Denmark for particular attention, after it voted with Japan despite being a European Union member, our correspondent says.

As well as St Kitts and Nevis, the resolution was drafted by St Lucia, St Vincent, Grenada, Dominica and Antigua.

It says whales consume large quantities of fish, which those backing the overturning of the ban say makes whaling an issue of food security - a view dismissed by anti-whaling campaigners.

Tokyo believes whale numbers have risen sufficiently to allow the hunting of certain species.

But Japan's Deputy Whaling Commissioner Joji Morishita said any future commercial whaling would be on a much smaller scale than in the past.

"It's not going back to the commercial whaling, it should be the beginning of sustainable whaling, plus protection of depleted and endangered species," he said.

Environmental groups have accused developing countries of voting with Japan on whaling issues in return for money for fisheries projects - claims which have been repeatedly denied by all the countries involved, the Associated Press news agency says.

Currently, Japan and Iceland kill whales under an IWC ruling which allows nations to catch whales for "scientific research".

Norway, which formally objected to the 1986 ban, openly conducts commercial whaling.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/5093350.stm

Sacramento -- State lawmakers on Tuesday grappled with the ethics of doctor-assisted suicide, debating whether helping a terminally ill patient end his or her life violates a physician's duties and responsibilities.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was a prelude to a vote next week on a measure that would legalize the practice in California modeled after such a law in Oregon the only state that allows the practice.

Opponents said doctors should care for people rather than help them die and that assisted suicide could lead to devaluing people with terminal illness as unworthy of care.

Supporters said the practice should be an option to alleviate pain and suffering for some patients.

"As a physician it's my duty to give patients options," Dr. Nicholas Gideonse of the Oregon Health & Science University primary care center told the committee.

"The notion that physicians know best and that the patient cannot be trusted with the ability to make good decisions about their care, even the care at the end of their lives is an outdated ethical precept," said Gideonse who has prescribed lethal drugs for eight patients.

But opponents of the California bill, AB651, said it would lead to a slippery slope where those eligible for the lethal dosage -- under the bill only patients with six months or less to live -- could expand to patients who are not terminally ill.

"Public policy is to protect all citizens, not just the ones who want to live," said Wesley Smith, a lawyer and author of several books on assisted suicide. "Legalizing assisted suicide would be not only bad medicine but bad public policy."

Gideonse said doctors who help patients end their lives and end suffering are focused on the value of life.

"When there is no cure, we value their life best when responding to their final wish," he told the committee.

He also noted that in Oregon during the eight years the law has been in place there has been no move to expand it to nonterminal patients.

But Ilena Blicker, a Glendale neurologist, countered that suffering is a nebulous term that means different things to different patients.

"My role is not to get rid of the patient. It's my role to get rid of their issues," she said in opposing assisted suicide. "Yes, it is their life but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us to acquiesce" to help them end it.

If the assisted-suicide bill passes out of the Senate, it faces an uncertain fate in the Assembly. A bloc of moderate Democrats, some Catholic lawmakers and election year jitters may doom its chances in the lower house.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not take an official position on the bill, but comments he has made in the past suggest he would likely veto the measure.

At a Sacramento Press Club luncheon in January, the Republican governor, who faces re-election this fall, said the decision on whether California embraces such a law should be left to the voters.

"This is a decision probably that should go to the people, like the death penalty or other big issues," Schwarzenegger said. "I don't think that we, 120 legislators and I, should make that decision."