Certainly, the discovery of a new population of this critically endangered frog species represents some much needed good news from the amphibian world. According to the U.S. Geological Survey:
For the first time in nearly 50 years, a population of a nearly extinct frog has been rediscovered in the San Bernardino National Forest’s San Jacinto Wilderness. Biologists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessing suitability of sites to re-establish frogs and scientists from the San Diego Natural History Museum retracing a 1908 natural history expedition both rediscovered the rare mountain yellow-legged frog in the San Jacinto Wilderness near Idyllwild, Calif.
. . .
Prior to this recent discovery, USGS researchers had estimated there were about 122 adult mountain yellow-legged frogs in the wild.
. . .
“Historically, scientists have had great difficulty breeding frogs in captivity,” said Jeff Lemm, an animal research coordinator for the San Diego Zoo. “We are excited by this success and cautiously optimistic we will have more eggs soon.”
In December 2008, researchers at the Institute for Conservation Research discovered a clutch of about 200 eggs in one of its tanks. Researchers were surprised because the frogs were younger than is typical for breeding. Because of the frogs’ young age, only a handful of the eggs were fertile. The one frog to mature is thriving. The next breeding season is expected to be December 2009 to March 2010.
The goal of the breeding program is to return the mountain yellow-legged frog to its native habitat.
The Zoo’s breeding program, in conjunction with its partners, began after the rare frogs were rescued from a drying creek. Anne Poopatanapong, a wildlife biologist for the San Jacinto Ranger District in the San Bernardino National Forest was monitoring declining creek water levels in Dark Canyon on Aug. 23, 2006, when she noticed many pools drying up, including one where frogs had been living. Concerned about losing the tadpoles, she called the Fish and Wildlife Service and the salvage effort started the next day. A USGS team led by Dr. Robert Fisher rescued 82 tadpoles, which were taken to the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research.
The frog recovery effort has been funded by Caltrans in part to mitigate for emergency work to stabilize a slope near the frog’s habitat on state Route 330 in the San Bernadino Mountains.
“The emergency slope reconstruction project had the dual benefit of opening a road that was about to fail as well as helping to ensure that the last known population of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the San Bernardino Mountains had a program in place to aid the frog’s recovery,” said Craig Wentworth, a senior environmental planner/biologist with Caltrans.
Jim Bartel, the field supervisor for the Fish and Wildlife Service office in Carlsbad, said his agency is pleased to participate in the effort to rescue the mountain yellow-legged frog and conserve its remaining riparian habitat.
“We look forward to reintroducing the species to its native habitat,” Bartel said.
Habitat protection and restoration, combined with efforts to reintroduce these frogs to areas where they have been decimated, offers the best hope of returning mountain yellow-legged frogs in Southern California to a healthy, self-sustaining population.
A cruise ship arrived in Vancouver over the weekend with a fin whale attached to its bow. It’s still unclear whether or not the whale was killed by the ship or if it was already dead. There is some evidence that it may have been sick. The image is by Jenelle Schneide. From the Vancouver Sun:
The dead fin whale dragged to shore by a cruise ship had no food in its stomach, indicating it may have been sick, preliminary results from a necropsy reveal, said Paul Cottrell, marine mammal coordinator for the department of fisheries and oceans.
The female whale also had a thin layer of blubber, he said. While a thick layer indicates good health, providing a good layer of insulation and indicating the whale has been foraging, a thin layer doesn’t necessarily suggest bad health, Cottrell said, before explaining the thin layer of blubber may merely be a result of nutrients lost when the whale had been producing calves.
But the middle-aged whale wasn’t likely reproducing anymore at this stage in her life, according to the official.
Cottrell said it’s still unclear if the impact if the ship killed the whale or if it had been dead already. The final necropsy report should be completed within a couple of weeks, he said.
More images showing ship strikes:
The endangered sei whale, identified by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, didn’t stand a chance against this 800-foot container ship. According to the Maryland DNR:
The 36-foot, 8 ½ ton male was identified as a sei whale, an endangered species typically found in offshore waters. A team of biologists, led by MD DNR and the Smithsonian Institution, spent much of the day conducting a necropsy, or animal autopsy, on the whale to determine the cause of death. Initially, it wasn’t clear whether the whale was already dead and floating when the ship struck it, or whether the collision killed it. The necropsy revealed numerous broken bones includingcrew performing necropsy ribs, evidence of hemorrhaging, and a blood clot behind the head, suggesting that the animal was alive when struck and died as the result of blunt trauma. NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Law Enforcement is investigating the case because of the animal’s status as an endangered species, but it is unclear at this point if any charges will be filed by the agency.
The North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is particularly vulnerable to ship strikes, since the bulk of the highly endangered population resides in the Northwest Atlantic where vessel traffic is very frequent.
North Atlantic right whales are so rare that the population can’t afford to lose a single individual, especially breeding females. NOAA has been working on new regulations designed to prevent ship strikes. Oddly, former Vice President Dick Cheney interfered with the rule making. From NOAA:
Years of study and effort by NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard will pay off this summer when two changes to shipping lanes into Boston are implemented. Both changes significantly reduce the risk of collisions between large ships and whales.
. . .
Slow moving North Atlantic right whales — among the most endangered whales in the world — are highly vulnerable to ship collisions, since their primary feeding and migration areas overlap with major East Coast shipping lanes. Along with existing measures to prevent entanglement of right whales in fishing gear and regulations to reduce ship strikes by slowing ships, these changes in vessel operations are a part of the comprehensive approach that NOAA has taken in its effort to help right whales recover.
“Through years of study we have determined that these changes will likely provide a safer environment for whales and mariners, and at the same time, provide the least amount of disruption and impact to the economy,” said Jim Balsiger, NOAA’s acting assistant administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “NOAA and our partners are working extremely hard to do all we can to help save this critically endangered species, while helping mariners stay safe and productive.”
OMB Watch discusses former Vice President Dick Cheney’s shenanigans or obstruction of the ship strike rule:
New evidence shows that the White House is meddling with a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rule to protect the North Atlantic right whale — one of the most critically endangered whale species in the world. The rule has been awaiting clearance — or, more accurately, gathering dust — at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) since February 2007.
. . .
Stalling regulations and putting politics ahead of science is always bad, but they are especially troubling in this instance, as time is of the essence for the right whale. Fewer than 350 of the mammals remain. Since the summer of 2004, seven have died as a result of ship strikes, according to Waxman. Two right whales have been struck by ships, and one has likely died, in the time the rule has been stuck at OIRA. NMFS officials warn that even one more dead female could set the species on an irrevocable path toward extinction.
NMFS experts have been working diligently to extend protections for the right whale but have been stonewalled by political apparatchiks like OIRA Administrator Susan Dudley and Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House’s delay and scientific interference is truly an example of executive power run amok.
Individuals, governments, and corporations failing to recognize and follow environmental legislative mandates and regulations merely generate more costs and contribute to or exacerbate environmental degradation. Most certainly, courts play an important role and can be negative or positive drivers in remedying environmental wrongs.
B. Appropriateness of District Court’s Deadline
The district court supported its schedule with the following finding:
The CWA declares as a national goal the elimination of pollutant discharges into navigable waters by the year 1985. See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1). To meet this goal, the CWA required states to promptly submit TMDLs for all WQLSs, with initial lists of TMDLs due in 1979. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2). The tight deadline for submission of the TMDLs emphasizes an obvious congressional mandate that TMDLs be established in a matter of years, not decades. See Idaho Sportsmen’s Coalition v. Browner, 951 F.Supp. 962, 967 (W.D.Wa.1996). Montana failed to develop any TMDLs until 1996. In 1996, the state only identified 1 TMDL. In the nineteen years since 1979, Montana has developed 130 TMDLs. At its current pace, the state will need over one hundred years to develop the 3,000 TMDLs required for the WQLSs identified in 1998. The net result will be to put off for another generation a mandate that Congress required be taken years ago. Because TMDLs provide a basis for developing pollution control measures where technology-based point source controls prove inadequate, TMDLs must be developed quickly if they are to serve their intended purpose. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(A); Browner, supra, 951 F.Supp. at 967. Montana’s submission of 130 TMDLs in 1998 fails to meet the CWA’s requirement that states promptly develop TMDLs for the WQLSs they identify. Accordingly, I find that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to disapprove of Montana’s inadequate submission of TMDL’s.
The court’s imposition of a schedule is also supported by Montana’s history of delay and EPA’s repeated failure to require the timely development of TMDLs as evidenced by numerous court orders and consent decrees across the country.
. . .
The district court has broad latitude in fashioning equitable relief when necessary to remedy an established wrong. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo 456 U.S. 305, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). In this case the established wrong is the failure of the EPA to take any steps to establish the TMDLs mandated by Congress for more than a decade. In tailoring the relief granted, the district court correctly recognized that in order to bring about any progress toward achieving the congressional objectives of the CWA, the EPA would have to be directed to take specific steps. In selecting the remedy that it did, the district court acted with great restraint in requiring only that steps undeniably necessary to the development of TMDLs in Alaska be accomplished by deadlines that are far more lenient than those contained within the CWA itself.
Amongst a backdrop of record spending, the United States faces three great policy challenges: (1) managing and absorbing the swelling costs of the past and present occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; (2) providing healthcare for all Americans or healthcare reform to tackle rising costs; and (3) considering the costs of merely doing nothing, implementing legislation tackling climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
Although the Obama Administration has inherited these problems and must work to remedy them, I have no hesitations blaming the Bush II Administration for allowing these three issues to fester. No doubt, a very costly mistake of the Bush II Administration was the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Nonetheless, 75% of Americans originally supported the invasion of Iraq. Proudly, I did not support the invasion of Iraq.
Unfortunately, what we all received—whether we supported the Iraq invasion or not—was a future potential price tag of $2 trillion dollars. In addition to Democratic support for the invasion of Iraq, the aggressive Republican push and support for this costly war is contrary to that party’s philosophy. Nonetheless, Republicans point the finger at Democrats for perpetuating big spending thus big government. However, Republicans under Bush II managed to produce record deficits, which arguably, did not promote the general welfare of our country.
Basically, we’ve received nothing for these huge policy mistakes. Accordingly, that’s why I support spending measures like healthcare reform from the Obama Administration, because these new policies are needed to alleviate inefficiencies contributing to record deficits, and these new policies reflect spending for the general welfare of our country.
Currently, Congress is debating healthcare reform, but the political will to remedy our nation’s healthcare woes has slowed down due to worries over costs. However, these worries either reflect ignorance of the issues or a desire to ignore them. Too bad we didn’t bottle up any of that American support leading up to the Iraq Invasion for healthcare reform, because we could use some of that aggressive American support for healthcare reform, education reform, and meaningful measures to tackle climate change and pollution. Ultimately, I believe the arguments against healthcare reform are as weak as the arguments made to invade Iraq.
Here are some interesting numbers I’ve found online regarding the three issues mentioned in the first paragraph. Furthermore, I will continue to update this post, and please fill free to contribute.
WAR
% of Americans supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq: 75%.
Cost of the Iraq War earlier today: $667,415,039,641 and rising substantially by the second
Cost of Iraq War per second: $5,000 – $6,300 or more
Total projected cost of former President George W. Bush’s Iraq War: $2,000,000,000,000 (or $2 trillion dollars) or more
Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question. I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11th cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, another event in the United States that was like September 11th, and which cost thousands of lives, but one that involved a — for example, a biological weapon, would be — have a cost in human life, as well as in billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be vastly greater.
Canada spends more than a third less per capita on health than the United States and still covers everyone, whereas the U.S. system leaves 46 million people without insurance.
I’m a Canadian. two years ago my sister walked into our local hospital, dropped dead with a heart attack, they worked on her for 15 minutes and got her heart started again. She was moved to ICU and put on life support with a nurse by her bed 24 hours a day. A few days later she was air lifted to a bigger hospital an hour away. She remained in ICU for another two weeks on life support and again with a nurse 24/7. They even at one point were talking about a heart transplant. She finally recovered without the transplant and was realeased from hospital. The total bill for the entire 3 weeks…..$O.00. So what if i have to wait a few months for knee surgery, BTW that wouldn’t cost anything either.
So what if some poor French farmer or Factory worker is paying for someone else’s medical bills? Have you not considered that maybe – JUST MAYBE – they, too, will one day require medical attention? At which point those who have already been to the hospital / clinic will be paying for THEM, so its a fair system. Everyone gives some and everyone takes some.
Sure, some take more than others given biology and a few unwise lifestyle choices, but who has really lived a problem-free life?! The medical attention is there when YOU need it — not when your needs have been cleared through your insurance company and are able to pay for it.
I have a very good example of why our healthcare costs are so inflated. I live in NYC, and in my experience, the insurance my employer provides is quite good. I know it costs nearly $15,000 per employee per year, which luckily, my employer pays in full.
I recently wanted to get a new pair of glasses, and needed to see the eye doctor to make sure my prescription hadn’t changed since my last exam some years earlier. The way my insurance works, I have to go through my primary care doctor for a referral to any “specialists”, or my insurance will not cover it. When I called my doctor’s office to ask them to put in the referral with my insurance, they refused. They would only give me a referral to see an eye doctor if I came in for an exam with my primary care doctor first. So I had to wait 2 weeks to see my primary doc, who charges almost $400 per visit (paid by my insurance) just to be told I was in fine health. And only then did they clear me to see my eye doc.
My primary care doc essentially held me hostage with insurance.
Comment 4
I had triple bypass open heart surgery in 1995 at a local private hospital in my PPO, which was part of the health coverage provided by my employer. I’d gone to the ER late one night and went directly from there to the OR at noon the next day (thanks to a cancellation in the top cardiac surgeon’s schedule). The surgery was a such a success that I didn’t need any patchwork done until just a few weeks ago. I was in the hospital for 6 days only because I had a relatively minor setback on the morning of day 4, when the insurance company wanted me to be sent home. The total hospital bill was over $100,000, not including the doctors’ fees.
The insurer paid their share of everything but the room, claiming that it alone hadn’t been preauthorized. Remember, I was not involved in any of the arrangements; it all took place between the hospital and the insurer. The room charge for 6 days in the CCU was approximately $20,000 (nearly 15 years ago!). When I began getting monthly bills from the hospital, I started contacting both the insurer and the hospital, all to no avail. They all recognized the absurdity of paying for the surgery and the meds and the staff time, etc., but not the room. Yet no-one chose to resolve it. I couldn’t and didn’t pay.
Eventually, the matter was turned over to a collection agency. Finally, I overheard in the pharmacy line that the hospital had a dispute-resolution office. Why I hadn’t been told of its existence, I can’t imagine. Fortunately, though it took the better part of 6 months, the hospital was able to persuade the insurer to reverse its decision not to pay for the room. Except for the deductible, I was off the hook.
Besides the stress to me, think of all the time, effort and expense devoted to this idiotic dispute. Nor was this a rare experience; many of my coworkers and friends and family had similar experiences. For example, when my father was dying of a brain tumor in the mid-’80s, my mother was confused and distressed by Medicare’s apparently random rejection of about 10% of her legitimate claims.
During one of Dad’s several hospitalizations, Mom overheard in the lounge a conversation among other spouses about the same problem. The solution, as described by 2 of those involved, was simply to resubmit the claims exactly as before. From then on, every time Mom resubmitted a rejected claim, the claims were paid.
After my father passed away, we read in the papers of a major investigation of this practice. Medicare contracted out its claims determinations to big insurance companies on a regional basis, which I imagine is still the practice. When the government decreed that Medicare had to reduce its expenditures by a certain percentage (maybe 5 to 10%, but I don’t recall the details), the feds ordered the claims-administering insurers to tighten up the screening of claims.
In some cases, they took a closer look at pending claims to find more that could legitimately be declined; in other cases, they randomly rejected one of every 10 or 15 or 20, whatever was necessary. Prudential was the “guilty party” for the region that included Northern New Jersey; apparently, they were among the random rejectors, which explains how identical claims could be accepted on the second or third attempts after one or more rejections.
In contrast, when I was on vacation in London in the early-’70s, my friends and I were having lunch in our hotel dining room. Just as the meal was being served, I had a moderately severe asthma attack, my first in many years. After being whisked to a nearby hospital by ambulance, I was treated in the emergency clinic and kept overnight for observation. The total cost was zero/nil/nada, including meds. The only negative was that the hotel insisted I pay for the meal I’d been unable to eat!
Given the supposed superiority of the free-market system we think we have for healthcare, shouldn’t our costs be dramatically less than those socialists across the pond?
France spends only around 10% of its GDP on healthcare. With no one denied care or coverage.
The US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare. Millions are uninsured.
So in reality, the President is right; we should be able to ensure access to healthcare without spending a single dime more.
I have a severe genetic disorder that causes my insides to painfully swell. In the states, I have to import medication to treat the disorder at a cost of around $1,000 a treatment. While in France studying abroad, I became sick on the train from Lyons to Paris. After standing in the bathroom of the train throwing up for over two hours, I somehow stumbled to a cab and asked to be taken to the nearest hospital.
Upon arriving, I continued throwing up in the waiting area. The nurse kindly took down my information and led me to the back. After about 10 minutes of trying to explain my disorder, the doctor suddenly realized what I was asking for, left the office, and came back with three vials of my treatment medication. He treated me, gave me plenty o painkillers, and sent me on my way.
As for payment? The nurse asked for my address and I wrote it on her hand. About a month later, a bill for 40 euros arrived at my home in Nebraska.
We were visiting my in-laws in Auckland, New Zealand and before the trip, I called my healthcare provider here in the Pennsylvania area – Highmark Blue Cross – about coverage abroad. They sent me a link of primary care physicians. Understand that I pay extra for PPO care, so theoretically, I should be able to pick anyone from their list and just set up an appointment.
My daughter had an ear infection and I called the doctors on Highmark’s list. Out of 10 doctors, 7 doctors have changed practices and are no longer at these medical practices or out of business. The other 3 were surgeons. Obviously Highmark did their homework.
My mother-in-law suggested we take our daughter to their primary care physician at the local mall. I am expecting having to pay 200-800 USD for office visit and possible prescription(s). We get to the local doctors office, and it was not crowded at all. Prices for care were listed: $20 NZ Dollars for local residents, $30 NZ Dollars for international guests/visitors.
$30 NZ Dollars which at the time was approximately $20 US Dollars. For uninsured, non-resident treatment.
We were prescribed an antibiotic and I was expecting to pay $80 USD, but the pharmacy (which is attached to the doctors office) did not charge us stating it is part of the primary bill of $30 NZ Dollars.
Considering I pay in excess of $12K per year for PPO health maintenance and still have the potential to have treatments rejected, the “choice” option here in the US really is no choice. Although the base tax rate for NZ residents is slightly higher than in the US for individuals earning less than 120K, add the “tax” of healthcare and mandatory auto insurance, plus additionals like dental insurance and eyecare, plus term and whole life insurance, home owners insurance, and state, local and residential property tax in addition to a local wage tax, and my overall “tax” burden exceeds 60% of my income. Whereas, if I were to move to Auckland, NZ, with same medical coverage, life insurance, home owners and local taxes, my tax burden is only 45%.
More personal stories that make a strong case for national healthcare can be found here.
—
Photo source for attribution here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.
A rare ghost orchid is blooming for the third straight year at a southwest Florida nature preserve.
The flower’s sighting at the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Naples this year is unusual because the ghost orchid rarely blooms more than two years in a row.
The blooms are about 50 feet up an old cypress tree and can be seen from a boardwalk. Two telescopes help visitors see the blooms – nine of which were visible Sunday.
The ghost orchid has been featured in the nonfiction book “The Orchid Thief” and the fictional movie spinoff “Adaptation.” It was first spotted in at the sanctuary in 2007 after a 12-year-abscence from the park.
Some interesting information from Wikipedia regarding how the ghost orchid depends on a species of moth to achieve pollination:
Certainly, the discovery of a new population of this critically endangered frog species represents some much needed good news from the amphibian world. According to the U.S. Geological Survey:
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
