September, 05 2012, 04:09pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 669-7357
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, (602) 253-8633
Kim Crumbo, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, (928) 606-5850
Suit Filed to Protect Wildlife From Lead Poisoning in Arizona's Kaibab National Forest
Conservation groups sued the U.S. Forest Service today for failing to protect wildlife from toxic lead in spent ammunition in Arizona's Kaibab National Forest. The Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and Grand Canyon Wildlands Council filed suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a federal law governing disposal of hazardous waste.
PHOENIX, Ariz.
Conservation groups sued the U.S. Forest Service today for failing to protect wildlife from toxic lead in spent ammunition in Arizona's Kaibab National Forest. The Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and Grand Canyon Wildlands Council filed suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a federal law governing disposal of hazardous waste. Lead bullet fragments from hunting contaminate the food supply for Arizona wildlife such as condors, bald and golden eagles, northern goshawks, ferruginous hawks and ravens; and are also a hazard to human health for those eating game shot with lead ammunition.
"The Forest Service has a duty to prevent the buildup of toxic materials and the needless lead poisoning of wildlife in our national forests," said Jeff Miller with the Center. "There's no justification for continuing to use ammunition that poisons the food supply for birds, and for people who eat game meat, when nonlead alternatives are readily available for all hunting activities in the Kaibab National Forest."
"We've effectively used federal toxics laws to remove lead from water pipes, gasoline, paint, cooking utensils and even wheel weights, and now it's time to get the lead out of hunting ammunition for the benefit of our wildlife," said Kim Crumbo with Grand Canyon Wildlands.
"The use of nonlead ammunition for hunting waterfowl the past two decades has saved millions of birds from lead poisoning, and Arizona's forests and wildlife stand to gain the same benefits from requiring lead-free ammunition for big game hunting."
"Because lead is so dangerous to people and wildlife, even at very low levels, it is imperative that we take this important step to transition ammunition to less toxic alternatives and remove lead from the food chain," said Sandy Bahr with the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon (Arizona) Chapter. "The Forest Service should require nonlead ammunition for hunting on public land as an important step in limiting lead exposure for condors and other wildlife."
The plaintiffs are represented by the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center of Lewis & Clark Law School.
Find more information about the lead poisoning threat at www.GetTheLeadOut.org.
Background
Hunting is allowed in most of the Kaibab National Forest, and no restrictions have yet been imposed on the use of lead ammunition by either the Forest Service or the Arizona Game and Fish Department. For the past few years, however, Arizona Game and Fish has been encouraging hunters to use nonlead bullets -- even going so far as to provide free copper ammunition to deer and elk hunters within the condor range around the Grand Canyon, since condors often scavenge remains of deer or elk killed by hunters.
But despite a reported 80 percent to 90 percent of deer hunters in the Kaibab using copper rounds, lead ammo is still used by some hunters, leaving hundreds of lead-tainted deer carcasses, plus an unknown number of lead-contaminated carcasses of other game, in the Kaibab every year. Lead poisoning is the leading cause of death for endangered California condors in Arizona. Earlier this year, scientists said the rare birds would not recover until the threat of lead poisoning from ammunition is eliminated.
Forest Service compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act will not impede hunting in the Kaibab. The cost of ammunition is typically a fraction of what hunters spend on a hunting trip and nonlead ammunition is becoming less expensive. For some ammunition, copper rounds are now the same price as equivalent lead rounds. Hunters in other areas that do have restrictions on lead ammunition have easily transitioned to hunting with nonlead bullets. For example, there has been no decrease in game tags or hunting since state requirements for nonlead ammo went into effect in significant portions of Southern California in 2008 to protect condors from poisoning.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department publishes a list of nonlead rifle ammunition available for big-game hunters, including more than 100 bullets in various calibers produced by 14 ammunition manufacturers, as well as seven manufacturers that provide custom-loaded nonlead rifle ammunition. In recent post-hunt surveys in Arizona, 90 percent of hunters approved of the use of copper bullets, and 88 percent of successful hunters who used nonlead ammunition said it performed as well as, or better than, lead bullets.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Entire Towns Evacuated as Climate-Fueled Wildfires Start 'Very Early' in Spain
"These fires we're seeing, especially this early in the year, are once again proof of the climate emergency that humanity is living through, which particularly affects and ravages countries such as ours," said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.
Mar 24, 2023
A large wildfire raging in Spain's eastern Valencia region forced more than 1,500 people to flee their homes on Friday, providing further evidence of life-threatening consequences of the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis and bolstering the case for meaningful mitigation efforts.
Since it broke out in the municipality of Villanueva de Viver on Thursday, Spain's first major wildfire of the year has destroyed more than 7,400 acres of forest, prompting evacuation orders in eight communities across the Castellón province.
As residents sought refuge in shelters run by the Red Cross and other charities, more than 500 firefighters—supported by 18 planes and helicopters—were still attempting to contain the blaze on Friday afternoon.
"While firefighters believed they were managing to control the spread of the flames, strong winds and 'practically summertime temperatures' could reactivate it," Reuters reported, citing a local official.
"Summer is getting longer, it is arriving earlier, and the availability of water and humidity in the soil is unfortunately being reduced, making us much more vulnerable."
Ximo Puig, president of the Valencia region, told reporters the fire came "very early in the spring" and was "very voracious from the beginning."
It's not yet clear what sparked the blaze, but after months of arid conditions in the region, there's no shortage of dry fuel that can act as kindling. Climate scientists have long warned that as unmitigated greenhouse gas pollution causes temperatures to rise and droughts to worsen, wildfire seasons will grow longer and the number and severity of conflagrations will increase.
Speaking to reporters in Brussels, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, "These fires we're seeing, especially this early in the year, are once again proof of the climate emergency that humanity is living through, which particularly affects and ravages countries such as ours."
According to Reuters, "An unusually dry winter across parts of the south of the European continent has reduced moisture in the soil and raised fears of a repeat of 2022."
Last year, wildfires destroyed nearly two million acres of land throughout Europe—more than double the annual average over the past 16 years, according to the European Commission. In Spain alone, 493 blazes wiped out more than 750,000 acres.
People in Spain, already suffering from a long-term drought marked by three years of below-average rainfall, are bracing for drier and hotter weather than usual this spring along the country's northeastern Mediterranean coast.
Experts have already started sounding the alarm about the likelihood of another catastrophic year for wildfires, especially if the frequency, duration, and intensity of heatwaves are comparable to last year, which saw records toppled.
"There is every reason to fear that this year too there will be numerous and widespread events."
"Out-of-season fires" are becoming increasingly common, Spanish Environment Minister Teresa Ribera told reporters this week. "Summer is getting longer, it is arriving earlier, and the availability of water and humidity in the soil is unfortunately being reduced, making us much more vulnerable."
Spain is far from alone. "A European Commission report this month observed a lack of rain and warmer-than-normal temperatures during the winter, raising drought warnings for southern Spain, France, Ireland, Britain, northern Italy, Greece, and parts of eastern Europe," Reuters reported. The commission "warned that low levels of water could affect strategic sectors including agriculture, hydropower, and energy production."
Lorenzo Ciccarese from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research told the outlet that "there is every reason to fear that this year too there will be numerous and widespread events."
The United Nations warned last year that as a result of planet-heating emissions and land-use change, wildfires are projected to increase 30% by 2050 and 50% by the end of the century.
After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest assessment report this week, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said that limiting global warming to 1.5°C is possible, "but it will take a quantum leap in climate action," including a prohibition on greenlighting and financing new coal, oil, and gas projects as well as a phaseout of existing fossil fuel production.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UK Lawyers Sign 'Declaration of Conscience' Not to Prosecute Peaceful Climate Protesters
"It's the ordinary people of this country, taking a stand against this greed and destruction that the British legal system prosecutes and imprisons, jailing them just for talking about the climate crisis and fuel poverty."
Mar 24, 2023
More than 120 mostly English lawyers on Friday published a "declaration of conscience" pledging to withhold their services from "supporting new fossil fuel projects" and "action against climate protesters exercising their democratic right of peaceful protest."
The United Kingdom has in recent years faced protests from numerous climate groups, including those with more pronounced direct actions like Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, and Extinction Rebellion. As part of those protests, participants have filled the streets, blocked fossil fuel facilities, glued scientific papers and themselves to a government building, called out major law firms for "defending climate criminals," and even, controversially, tossed tomato soup on one of Vincent van Gogh's glass-protected paintings.
Released on the heels of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the lawyers' statement notes the U.K. Parliament's 2019 climate emergency declaration, the International Energy Agency's warning against future oil and gas development, and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres' proclamation that "investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness."
The attorneys' declaration also recognizes that the world is on track to breach the 2015 Paris climate agreement's 1.5°C goal and the "dire consequences" of doing so, pointing out that "in the U.K. alone, we are already seeing unprecedented heatwaves, wildfires, flooding, and coastal erosion. In other parts of the globe the effects are already far worse."
Along with vowing to restrict their services, the lawyers:
- Called upon the U.K. government and other attorneys to take action;
- Advocated for law and litigation reform related to mitigating and adapting to global warming;
- Expressed support for the democratic right to peaceful protest, which is under attack in the United Kingdom; and
- Committed to donating their time and money to climate causes.
The attorneys, collectively calling themselves Lawyers Are Responsible, are supported by the groups Good Law Project and Plan B.Earth—whose director, Tim Crosland, highlighted that "the U.N. has said we're on a 'highway to climate hell' and that to get off it, we need to stop new fossil fuel developments now. But behind every new oil and gas deal sits a lawyer getting rich."
"Meanwhile, it's the ordinary people of this country, taking a stand against this greed and destruction that the British legal system prosecutes and imprisons, jailing them just for talking about the climate crisis and fuel poverty," Crosland said. "The rule of law has been turned on its head. Lawyers are responsible. It's time to take a stand."
Taking a stand is not without risk. In the United Kingdom, generally, solicitors advise clients on specific issues and barristers argue in court—and the former are able to choose their cases and clients while the latter are subject to the "cab rank rule," obligating them to provide services as long as they are qualified, even if the case or client is objectionable.
As Lawyers Are Responsible's website details in response to some right-wing outrage over the declaration:
The classic example of the cab rank rule in action is of a criminal barrister who accepts a brief to represent a person accused of murder, against whom there is strong evidence of guilt. In that situation, there is no conflict between the cab rank rule and the interests of justice. The barrister is agreeing to perform his or her role within a system of justice that produces, on the whole, just outcomes. By representing the accused, the barrister is merely helping to ensure that there is a fair trial and is serving the greater good.
The signatories to the declaration are convinced that at the present time offering their services in support of new fossil fuel projects or action against peaceful climate protesters would not serve the greater good.
Good Law Project director and declaration signatory Jolyon Maugham wrote in a Friday opinion piece for The Guardian that "like Big Tobacco, the fossil fuel industry has known for decades what its activities mean. They mean the loss of human life and property, which the civil law should prevent but does not."
"The scientific evidence is that global heating, the natural and inevitable consequence of its actions, will cause the deaths of huge numbers of people. The criminal law should punish this but it does not," Maugham continued. "Nor does the law recognize a crime of ecocide to deter the destruction of the planet. The law works for the fossil fuel industry—but it does not work for us."
"Today's history books speak with horror about what the law of yesterday did, of how it permitted racism, rape, and murder," he added. "And tomorrow's history books will say the same about the law as it stands today, of how it enabled the destruction of our planet and the displacement of billions of people."
The Guardianreported that "18 barristers, including six king's counsel, have signed the declaration" and "will now self-refer to the Bar Standards Board." The newspaper noted that while barristers can face fines for rule-breaking, "the consequences can be more far-reaching for junior members of the profession, who can find themselves blocked from receiving the 'silk' awarded to king's counsel, or from promotion to the judiciary."
In a statement from Plan B, one junior lawyer who wished to remain anonymous said that "young lawyers are being placed in an impossible position. We're being told by our firms and regulators it's a professional obligation to act for fossil fuel projects, knowing that doing so will poison our own future and all of life on Earth."
"That's wrong on every level. It's indefensible," the lawyer added. "If the profession doesn't look out for my generation, how does it expect to survive?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Blast Medicare Advantage Giants Over 'Exorbitant' CEO Pay
"It is outrageous that industry groups, on your behalf, are putting your plan's enormous profits over care for seniors," wrote Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley.
Mar 24, 2023
Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley are calling attention to the massive profits and "exorbitant" executive salaries of top Medicare Advantage insurers such as UnitedHealthcare and Humana, which are leading a lobbying blitz against efforts to combat widespread fraud in the privately run healthcare program.
“In 2022, the seven major Medicare Advantage health care insurers—UnitedHealthcare, CVS/Aetna, Cigna, Elevance Health, Humana, Centene, and Molina—brought in revenues of $1.25 trillion and reported total profits of $69.3 billion, a 287% increase in profits since 2012," the Democratic senators wrote in recent letters to the companies' CEOs, citing an analysis by Wendell Potter of the Center for Health and Democracy.
"But rather than investing in benefits for patients," they added, "these seven health insurers instead spent $26.2 billion on stock buybacks."
Warren (D-Mass.) and Merkley (D-Ore.) also highlighted the "extraordinary salaries" of the insurance giants' CEOs and other top executives. Brian Thompson, who became UnitedHealthcare's CEO in 2021, brought home nearly $10 million in total compensation that year, according to SEC filings.
Humana chief executive Bruce Broussard raked in more than $17 million in 2021.
The letters were sent Wednesday as the insurance industry continues to ramp up its attacks on Biden administration proposals aimed at reining in upcoding and other tactics that Medicare Advantage plans use to reap larger payments from the federal government, which funds the program.
Critics of Medicare Advantage argue that such overpayments—which topped $15 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone—are "depleting the Medicare Trust Fund" at the expense of patients, who are frequently denied medically necessary care.
"MA plans are consistently paid more for seniors' care," Warren and Merkley noted, "and MedPAC projects that total Medicare payments to MA plans in 2023 will be $27 billion higher than if MA beneficiaries were enrolled in traditional Medicare."
"Rather than investing in benefits for patients, these seven health insurers instead spent $26.2 billion on stock buybacks."
Even though the Biden administration's proposed reforms would still leave Medicare Advantage plans with payments that are around 1% higher per enrollee in 2024 compared to this year, the insurance industry has characterized the changes as a cut and warned that their implementation would lead to higher premiums and worse care for beneficiaries.
In their letters, Warren and Merkley accused the for-profit insurance industry of attempting "to scare seniors and people with disabilities into opposing changes that will reduce waste, fraud, and abuse" in Medicare Advantage.
As The New York Timesreported earlier this week, "Medicare officials have been inundated with more than 15,000 comment letters for and against the policies, and roughly two-thirds included identical phrases from form letters."
"Insurers used television commercials and other strategies to urge Medicare Advantage customers to contact their lawmakers," the Times added. "The effort generated about 142,000 calls or letters to protest the changes, according to the Better Medicare Alliance, one of the lobbying groups involved."
That group—which counts Aetna, Humana, and other insurance giants as "ally organizations"—purchased a Super Bowl ad urging the White House not to "cut" Medicare Advantage:
Warren and Merkley voiced outrage that Medicare Advantage insurers would respond to the Biden administration's proposed policy changes by threatening "actions that hurt seniors"—such as premium hikes—"instead of reducing exorbitant salaries or the massive payouts to your shareholders and executives."
"It is outrageous that industry groups, on your behalf, are putting your plan's enormous profits over care for seniors," the senators wrote to the insurance company CEOs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.