text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Hawaii › District of Hawaii › 1986 › Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land & Natural Resources
Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land & Natural Resources, 649 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Haw. 1986)
US District Court for the District of Hawaii - 649 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Haw. 1986)
649 F. Supp. 1070 (1986)
PALILA (Loxioides bailleui, formerly Psittirostra bailleui), an endangered species; Sierra Club, a non-profit corporation; National Audubon Society, a non-profit association; and Alan C. Ziegler, Plaintiffs,
HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES; and Susumu Ono, in his capacity as chairman of the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources, Defendants,
Sportsmen of Hawaii, Inc., Hawaii Island Archery Club, Hawaii Rifle Association, Gerald Kang, Kenneth Funai, John Wong and Irwin Kawano, Defendants/Intervenors.
Civ. No. 78-0030.
United States District Court, D. Hawaii.
*1071 Michael R. Sherwood, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., San Francisco, Cal., William S. Hunt, Paul, Johnson & Alston, Pacific Tower, Honolulu, Hawaii, of counsel, for plaintiffs.
Edwin P. Watson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Corinne Watanabe, Atty. Gen., State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendants.
Katsuya Yamada, Hilo, Hawaii, for Sportsmen of Hawaii, Inc., Hawaii Island Archery Club, Gerald King, Kenneth Funai, and John Wong.
John S. Carroll, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Hawaii Rifle Ass'n and Irwin Kawano.
SAMUEL P. KING, Senior District Judge.
In this proceeding, I face the competing interests of mouflon sheep hunters on the slopes of Mauna Kea and of the endangered bird species Palila, which makes its home there.
Earlier proceedings involved a similar conflict but were limited to feral[1] sheep and goats. In Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 471 F. Supp. 985 (D.Hawaii 1979) (Palila I), I found that the feral sheep and goats were "harming" the Palila in contravention of the Endangered Species Act and ordered the State of Hawaii to remove all feral sheep and goats from the critical habitat of the Palila.[2]
At that time, Jon G. Giffin, Wildlife Biologist in the Division of Forestry and Wildlife in the Department of Land and Natural Resources, was studying mouflon sheep and their impact on the critical habitat of the Palila. In deference to Mr. Giffin, the State of Hawaii, and the claims of hunters that mouflon sheep did not present the same potential for harm to the Palila's critical habitat as did the feral sheep, the plaintiffs specifically excluded mouflon sheep from their prayers for relief.
The mouflon sheep study has since been completed. On the basis of the findings, plaintiffs refiled an action, essentially identical to their original action, but this time aimed at mouflon sheep. They seek a mandatory *1072 injunction requiring the State of Hawaii to remove all mouflon sheep from the critical habitat of the Palila. The only issue before me, then, is whether the mouflon sheep are "harming" the Palila, as prohibited by the Endangered Species Act and its corresponding regulations.[3]
A. The Bird
The Palila, Loxioides bailleui, is a six-inch long finch-billed member of the Hawaiian honeycreeper sub-family (Drepanidinae). It has a golden-yellow head, black lores,[4] a whitish abdomen, and a gray back.
Palila, which are endemic to Hawaii, are today found only in a small area on the upper slopes (approximately 6600 feet to treeline, 9400 feet) of Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaii. This represents approximately ten percent of the bird's historical range. When first officially discovered in 1876, Palila lived only on the island of Hawaii.[5] It was common in north and south Kona and on the slopes of Mauna Kea in the Hamakua and Hilo Districts. By 1894, the birds were no longer found in Kona. This extirpation may have resulted from avian malaria carried by mosquitoes whose populations increased rapidly with ranching activities in the late nineteenth century.
By the mid-twentieth century, the range had shrunk to its present area, largely due to habitat destruction from grazing ungulates (hoofed mammals). Feral cattle, horses, sheep, and pigs were established on Mauna Kea by the early 1800s. However, the feral cattle and horses were removed in the 1920s and 1930s, and the feral pigs do not appear to have a significant adverse effect on the mamane ecosystem. Feral goats appeared in some numbers in the 1930s, and mouflon sheep were introduced in 1963. As discussed more fully in Palila I, 471 F. Supp. at 989-90, the feral goats and sheep, which the Department of Land and Natural Resources maintained for sport hunting purposes, had a devastating effect on the mamane forest. The ensuing negative impact on the Palila habitat and on the Palila prompted my order for the removal of the feral sheep and goats from the bird's critical habitat.
The Palila was listed as an endangered species by the Secretary of the Interior in 1967, 32 Fed.Reg. 4001 (1967), and it remains on the list of endangered species *1073 today. 50 C.F.R. § 17.11 (1985). The primary reasons for listing the Palila, in addition to the bird's low population, were that a significant portion of its historical range was no longer occupied and that its present habitat was being adversely modified by feral ungulate browsing.[6]
In 1979, at the time of the Palila I decision, the Palila's estimated population was between 1400 and 1600 birds, which was "dangerously close to that minimum number of individuals below which a population cannot drop if the species is to survive." 471 F. Supp. at 988.
At present, there are approximately 2200 Palila in existence.[7] Although the population is somewhat higher now than in 1979, no clearly defined pattern exists concerning population abundance. Most experts agreed that the bird has not experienced any significant "upward trend." At best, the population remains "static" at a level where the bird is still biologically endangered.[8]
The Palila is totally dependent on the mamane and mamane-naio forests for its existence. The bird's preferred food is the pods of the mamane tree (Sophora chrysophylla), but it will also eat mamane flowers, buds, and leaves, and berries of the naio tree (Myoporum sandwicense).[9] The bird also depends on the mamane for shelter and nesting sites.
The highest densities of Palila are found in well-developed tall pure mamane ecosystems with a native understory. Population studies have also shown a dependence of Palila on wider belts of woodland, i.e., a mamane forest that stretches over a wider altitudinal gradient. This allows the bird to take advantage of seasonal variations in the mamane fruits and flowers, providing it with the most ample and stable food source throughout the year.[10]
In 1977, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially designated the Palila's critical habitat as a 200 km2 ring around the upper slopes of Mauna Kea. 50 C.F.R. § 17.95 (1985). This area contains the entire known population of Palila and essentially encompasses the existing mamane and mamane-naio forests on Mauna Kea and coincides with the remaining ten percent of the Palila range.[11] Because of the *1074 Palila's various habitat requirements, however, the bird is not spread evenly throughout the critical habitat. The bird is only found in 140 km2 of its 200 km2 habitat, and 75-80% of the population is located in a 10 km2 area close to Puu Laau, which not surprisingly, has the most developed mamane ecosystem on the mountain.[12]
B. The Sheep
The European mouflon (Ovis musimon) is a native of Corsica and Sardinia. The sheep are light tan to rich brown, with white on the tail, rump, and underparts, and they have large horns of excellent trophy quality. The State Division of Fish and Game introduced the mouflon onto Mauna Kea with the original hope that they would upgrade the existing feral sheep and modify some of their undesirable characteristics.[13] A total of 99 hybrid sheep and 94 pure mouflon were released between 1962 and 1966. Due to political pressures from hunters, however, the hybridization project was never completed.
The defendant Department of Land and Natural Resources presently maintains the mouflon population for sport-hunting purposes within the Mauna Kea Game Management Area.[14] (This state game management area happens to include most of the Palila's critical habitat.) The mouflon has become exceedingly popular with local hunters because of its excellent sporting, meat, and trophy qualities. As of March 1986, there were approximately 501 mouflon sheep within the Game Management Area, including some adjoining ranchland. Most of these sheep (412) were found within the Palila critical habitat, although there were no sheep presently located near Puu Laau, the area of highest Palila density.[15]
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543 (1982), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to declare species of animal life "endangered"[16] and to identify the "critical habitat"[17] of these species. Once a species *1075 has been listed as endangered, section 9 of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to "take" any such species. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a) (1) (B). As defined by the Act, the term "take" means to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). At issue in this litigation is whether the state's maintenance of mouflon sheep on Mauna Kea "harms" the Palila so as to result in a "taking."
The Secretary of the Interior has defined "harm" to mean:
an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
50 C.F.R. § 17.3 (1985).
I understand this to prohibit activities that significantly modify or degrade the habitat, resulting in actual injury to the wildlife species. This would include activities that significantly impair essential behavioral patterns to the extent that there is an actual negative impact or injury to the endangered species, threatening its continued existence or recovery.
A. The Secretary's Redefinition of Harm
The proper interpretation of the term "harm" has been disputed by the parties throughout the proceedings. In particular, defendants stress the Secretary's redefinition of the term in 1981. These amended regulations, however, did not embody a substantial change in the previous definition.[18] Under both the original definition and the definition as amended in 1981, "harm" may include significant habitat destruction that injures protected wildlife.
Defendants argue that, following my Palila I decision, the Secretary redefined "harm" to stress that there must be an "actual injury" to wildlife from habitat destruction or modification. Defendants argue that a showing of "actual injury" requires plaintiff to show a present pattern of decline in the number of Palila. They argue that because the Palila population has remained static, or is perhaps slightly larger than at the time of Palila I, there is no evidence that the mouflon are harming Palila.
Defendants' expert witness, Dr. Mountainspring, further stressed the distinction between "actual" and "potential" harm. He argued that the mouflon are not presently harming Palila because the sheep eat primarily the shoots and sprouts of mamane, whereas the birds feed primarily on the seeds and pods. Thus, the sheep are not depriving Palila of their food source at present. He conceded, however, as did each expert at trial, that the mouflon sheep are presently degrading the mamane forest, that this degradation is irreversible because it is suppressing the forest's regeneration, that Palila depend on mamane for their existence, and that continued degradation could drive the Palila into extinction. Defendants maintain, though, that any effect the mouflon has on mamane and indirectly on Palila is only a "potential" injury and does not fall within the redefinition of harm.
I refuse to accept, the Secretary's final redefinition does not support, and Congress could not have intended such a shortsighted and limited interpretation of "harm." A finding of "harm" does not require death to individual members of the species; nor does it require a finding that habitat degradation is presently driving the species further toward extinction. Habitat destruction that prevents the recovery of the species by affecting essential behavioral patterns causes actual injury to the species and effects a taking under section 9 of the Act.
*1076 In passing the Endangered Species Act, it is "beyond doubt that Congress intended endangered species to be afforded the highest of priorities." Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 175, 98 S. Ct. 2279, 2292, 57 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1978). Moreover, Congress was aware that the primary threat to endangered species was destruction of habitat. 437 U.S. at 179, 98 S. Ct. at 2294. Thus, one of the main purposes of the Act was conservation and preservation of the ecosystems upon which endangered species depend. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). It is clear, then, that Congress intended to prohibit habitat destruction that harms an endangered species.[19]
The Secretary originally defined harm as follows:
"Harm" in the definition of "take" in the Act means an act or omission which actually injures or kills wildlife, including acts which annoy it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt essential behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering; significant environmental modification or degradation which has such effects is included within the meaning of "harm."[20]
This definition was in effect at the time of my Palila I decision.
In 1981, the Secretary proposed to amend the definition of "harm" to read simply "an act which injures or kills wildlife." 46 Fed. Reg. at 29,490. He reasoned that under the original definition, a showing of habitat modification alone, without any concomitant injury to wildlife, could be sufficient to invoke the criminal penalties of section 9. 46 Fed.Reg. at 29,490.[21] Under this proposal, "harm" would require actual death or injury to individual species members.[22]
The Secretary received 328 comments on the proposed redefinition, 262 of which *1077 were in opposition to the proposal. The Secretary thus did not adopt the original proposal, but promulgated the version that exists today. The Secretary explained that "harm" was being redefined
to mean any action, including habitat modification, which actually kills or injures wildlife, rather than the present interpretation which might be read to include habitat modification or degradation alone without further proof of death or injury. Habitat modification as injury would only be covered by the new definition if it significantly impaired essential behavioral patterns of a listed species.[23]
The Secretary clarified his intent that the redefinition did not limit harm to
direct physical injury to an individual member of the wildlife species.... The purpose of the redefinition was to preclude claims of a Section 9 taking for habitat modification alone without any attendant death or injury of the protected wildlife. Death or injury, however, may be caused by impairment of essential behavioral patterns which can have significant and permanent effects on a listed species.
46 Fed.Reg. at 54,748.
Thus the redefinition stresses the critical link between habitat modification and injury to the species. Obviously since the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect endangered wildlife, there can be no finding of a taking unless habitat modification or degradation has an adverse impact on the protected species.[24] As the Secretary explained, however, this injury to the species does not necessitate a finding of death to individual species members. Drawing from this, I conclude that a showing of "harm" similarly does not require a decline in population numbers. The Palila is hovering at or near the critical population mark; it is both biologically and legally endangered. Until the bird has reached a sufficiently viable population to be delisted, it should not be necessary for it to dip closer to extinction before the prohibitions of section 9 come into force. The key to the Secretary's definition is harm to the species as a whole through habitat destruction or modification. If the habitat modification prevents the population from recovering, then this causes injury to the species and should be actionable under section 9.
MOUFLON SHEEP ARE HARMING THE PALILA
At the time of the Palila I decision, the record was clear that feral sheep and *1078 goats had a severe negative impact on the mamane forest. By consuming the shoots and seedlings, the animals prevented regeneration of the forest and thus brought about the "relentless decline of the Palila's habitat." 471 F. Supp. at 990. As Mr. Giffin has summarized,
The feeding and herding habits of feral sheep have a devastating effect on the endemic mamane forest. The most serious problem occurs at timber line. Tree growth and reproduction are almost totally prevented due to constant browsing pressure. Many mature plants exhibit definite browse lines. Old trees are dying without replacements, causing the upper forest line to recede each year.
The loss of mamane also affects grasses and herbs which commonly grow under each tree at higher elevations. These plant communities depend on fog drip from branches and leaves for much of their moisture. When an individual tree dies, the associated ground cover rapidly disappears. Soils are then subject to wind and water erosion. Trampling and soil disturbance by feral animals speed this process. Vast areas that were formerly covered with vegetation are now sterile sand and cinder slopes.[25]
The record was similarly clear that this loss of habitat was the most important factor limiting the Palila population. Continued destruction of the forest would have driven the bird into extinction. As it was, the bird was, and still is, at the critical population level, that is, perched on the verge of extinction. The bird is thus highly susceptible to harm from other environmental factors, such as fire or drought. At the time then, the continued presence of feral sheep had a severe negative impact on the Palila by indirectly suppressing the population figures to a level which threatened extinction and by preventing the expansion or recovery of the population. These factors supported my decision to order removal of the feral sheep and goats in Palila I.
Now I must determine whether mouflon sheep have a similar negative impact on the mamane and on the Palila. If the mouflon sheep are similarly "harming" the Palila, the Endangered Species Act mandates their removal.
A. Impacts of Mouflon on Mamane and on Palila
Since the Palila I decision, Dr. Giffin has conducted extensive research into the mouflon. His findings on the mouflon feeding habits and the corresponding impact on the ecosystem are of particular significance.
Mouflon sheep also prefer the mamane habitat. They depend on mamane for shade, concealment, moisture, and most importantly, for food. Unfortunately for the Palila, mamane is also the favorite food of the mouflon sheep and is the most important item in the mouflon diet. (The mamane is a legume and is therefore very tasty.) The mouflon eat the leaves, stems, seedlings, and basal shoots of the mamane; they also commonly strip and eat the bark of the tree.[26] The sheep also eat grasses and the pukiawe shrub, although these items are of lesser importance in the diet.[27]
Defendants argue that mouflon do not have as deleterious effect on the mamane habitat as the feral sheep, because they do not eat exclusively mamane. However, Giffin and others have concluded that the mouflon's feeding habits are "essentially the same" as those of the feral sheep. *1079 Like the feral sheep, the mouflon also overbrowse the mamane, particularly at timberline. This feeding similarly results in lower abundance and growth rates of mamane, poor survival of mamane seedlings and saplings, and general destruction of the native understory.[28]
Defendants also argue that the mouflon sheep travel in smaller herds than the feral sheep and thus cause less harm to the mamane ecosystem.[29] While mouflon herd size does tend to be smaller, this difference does not seem to be significant. Scowcroft and Giffin conclude that mouflon sheep have essentially similar herding habits, behavior, and habitat use as feral sheep.[30] In short, mouflon are "potentially as destructive to the mamane subalpine woodland as feral sheep."[31]
The mouflon sheep impacts are readily apparent on Mauna Kea.[32] Portions of the mountain, where mouflon sheep populations are, or have been, high, are heavily damaged.[33] In these areas, there is heavy overgrazing, a decrease in total ground cover, a sharp browseline, many dead mamane (snags), and little or no regeneration. The suppression of mamane is particularly acute at treeline.[34] Research has shown that if the mouflon sheep were removed from these areas, regeneration would occur with time.[35]
Thus the evidence shows that at their present level, which is approximately the number of sheep necessary to maintain a viable sport hunting population,[36] mouflon sheep are having the same destructive impact on the mamane as the feral sheep. The mamane forest in its present state is at its peak carrying capacity. In other words, the Palila population may be as large as it can be now, given the condition of the *1080 mamane on the mountain.[37] Continued grazing by mouflon will continue to suppress mamane growth and regeneration. This in turn will harm the Palila in one of two ways. Either the mouflon sheep will further degrade the mamane ecosystem, thus decreasing the remaining Palila habitat and further depressing the Palila population. Or, at best, the mouflon will merely slow or prevent the recovery of the mamane forest, suppressing the available food supply and nesting sites for Palila, and thus preventing the Palila population from expanding toward recovery.
In conclusion, I find that the mouflon sheep are harming the Palila within the definition of 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. The mouflon are having a significant negative impact on the mamane forest, on which the Palila is wholly dependent for breeding, feeding, and sheltering. This significant habitat degradation is actually presently injuring the Palila by decreasing food and nesting sites, so that the Palila population is suppressed to its current critically endangered levels.[38] If the mouflon continue eating the mamane, the forest will not regenerate and the Palila population will not recover to a point where it can be removed from the Endangered Species List.[39] Thus, the presence of mouflon sheep on Mauna Kea threatens the continued existence and the recovery of the Palila species. If the Palila is to have any hope of survival, the mouflon must be removed to give the mamane forest a chance to recover and expand.
B. Inappropriateness of Multiple Use Approach
The State argues for multiple use on Mauna Kea, asserting that both mouflon sheep and Palila can coexist on Mauna Kea. The State's position stems from their conflicting obligations to foster sport-hunting and to protect endangered species such as the Palila. They argue, based in part on recommendations by their wildlife biologist, Jon Giffin, that with careful management and oversight, it is possible both to maintain a viable sport-hunting population of mouflon and to enhance the mamane ecosystem to encourage the survival of Palila.
The State acknowledges that the mamane ecosystem on Mauna Kea has been severely damaged by grazing ungulates, but they argue that since the feral sheep removal program began in 1982, there has been dramatic regeneration in some areas. Furthermore, the State is undertaking steps to improve the mamane forests and to minimize the impact of the mouflon.[40] The State argues that it will be a number of years before it can be determined what impact the mouflon actually are having on the mamane, and that in the meantime, this court should allow the present mouflon population to remain on Mauna Kea under strict management and surveillance.
There are several major problems with the State's position. First, it is unclear *1081 whether the mamane forests are regenerating to any significant extent.[41] Even if the mamane seedlings were taking root, it would take between 25 and 50 years before the trees were large enough to withstand grazing by sheep and to provide food and shelter for the Palila. Thus, Palila would not benefit from today's regrowth for many years.
Second, and more importantly, the Endangered Species Act does not allow a "balancing" approach for multiple use considerations.[42] I have found that mouflon sheep are "harming" the Palila population within the meaning of 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. Once this significant negative impact has been shown, the Act leaves no room for mixed use or other management strategies or policies. In addition, all of the experts agreed that, biologically speaking, mouflon were harming Palila that is, mouflon sheep are basically incompatible with the mamane ecosystem which the bird needs to survive.[43] It was only when the State's experts were faced with the competing objectives of trying to maintain viable populations of both sheep and bird, that they advocated a policy of "coexistence" with Palila.
Jon Giffin, who was called by the State, as the leading expert on mouflon sheep, agreed that mouflon have a substantial negative impact on the mamane, are as potentially destructive as feral sheep, and that, considering the issue from a biological standpoint alone, the mouflon should be eradicated.[44] However, when faced with the State's management objective to "maximize sheep numbers while still protecting endemic vegetation," Giffin recommended a density of fifteen sheep per square mile in prime habitat, ten sheep per square mile in good habitat, and five per square mile in lower quality habitat.[45] Giffin's report candidly admits, however, that optimum *1082 population numbers have not been determined for mouflon, and that continued study is necessary so that the sheep density can be adjusted as needed.[46]
I cannot accept this essentially "experimental approach" as applied to the endangered Palila. Giffin admitted on the stand that there are no quantitative studies to support his figures and that they were simply "starting points for management." Giffin and others acknowledged that it is wholly uncertain whether mamane recovery would occur at this level or whether degradation of the forest would continue.[47] Moreover, Giffin agreed that it would take many years to determine if these estimates are appropriate. This approach plays Russian roulette with a critically endangered species. Sheep densities will only be adjusted in response to a negative impact on the mamane or Palila. However, biological time lags impede an accurate analysis of species interaction, and by the time mouflon numbers have been readjusted, Palila may be extinct.
In conclusion, I find that the presence of mouflon sheep in numbers sufficient for sport-hunting purposes is harming the Palila. They degrade the mamane ecosystem to the extent that there is an actual present negative impact on the Palila population that threatens the continued existence and recovery of the species. Once this determination has been made, the Endangered Species Act leaves no room for balancing policy considerations, but rather requires me to order the removal of the mouflon sheep from Mauna Kea.
The mamane forest can be expected to recover slowly when released from the current browsing pressures.[48] At some point in the future, the mamane on Mauna Kea may have recovered sufficiently to support Palila beyond its current endangered population. Likewise, at some future date, the forest and the bird population may be sufficiently stable to allow the coexistence of some mouflon sheep with Palila. At present, however, the Endangered Species Act mandates the protection of the Palila to the extent possible, in the hope that this bird does not join the many other indigenous species that have disappeared from these islands.
The foregoing constitutes my findings of facts and conclusions of law in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. Based on these findings and conclusions, the plaintiffs are to draw up an appropriate order and send it to this court, through the defendant State and the defendant/intervenors. The order shall *1083 reflect the conclusion of this court that the mouflon sheep are to be removed from the critical habitat of the Palila on Mauna Kea. In addition, the order shall be combined with my previous order of 1979 mandating the removal of the feral sheep and goats. Finally, it shall also specifically order the removal of the hybrid mouflon/feral sheep, which the State has, in practice, been eliminating along with the feral sheep.[49]
[1] A "feral" animal is one that was once domesticated or is descended from domesticated animals, but is now living as a wild creature.
[2] The State is continuing its efforts to remove the feral sheep and goats. In addition, although the order did not specifically address hybrid sheep, i.e., crosses between mouflon and feral sheep, the Department has included them in their removal program. The State's efforts have included public hunting, staff shooting, and fencing. There are significant gaps in the fences, however, and numerous animals have wandered into, or still remain in, the critical habitat. In the March 1986 census a total of 170 feral and hybrid sheep were counted within the Palila critical habitat boundaries.
[3] The following experts were called to testify on trees, sheep, and birds:
For the plaintiffs:
Dr. Charles van Riper III, an ornithologist whose published Ph.D. thesis was on the breeding ecology of the Palila and who is a member of the Palila Recovery Team.
Dr. Andrew Berger, who has studied endangered Hawaiian birds, including the Palila, and authored numerous books on the subject, and who leads the Palila Recovery Team.
Mr. James Jacobi, a botanist employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Hawaii, who has participated in annual Palila studies and who has studied impacts of browsing ungulates on the Mauna Kea vegetation.
Dr. Cameron Kepler, a zoologist specializing in endangered Hawaiian birds, including the Palila.
Mr. Timothy Burr, an ornithologist who has participated in annual Palila surveys.
Dr. J. Michael Scott, a zoologist with a specialty in avian ecology, who directed the annual Palila studies until 1984, and who is a member of the Palila Recovery Team.
Mr. Paul Scowcroft, a research forester who specializes in mamane.
For the defendant State
Mr. Ronald Walker, Wildlife Biology Program Manager, Department of Land and Natural Resources, who is involved in state programs for mouflon management, mamane restoration, and Palila restoration.
Mr. Ronald Bachman, a wildlife biologist with the Department, who implements the various state programs on Mauna Kea.
Mr. Jon Giffin, a wildlife biologist for the Department of Land and Natural Resources who studied the mouflon on Mauna Kea and prepared the report entitled "Final Report: Ecology of the Mouflon Sheep on Mauna Kea," which was published in 1982.
For the Defendant/Intervenors (in addition to the State's witnesses):
Dr. Stephen Mountainspring, a wildlife biologist who has coauthored two studies on the Palila.
[4] The "lores" are the areas on the sides of the head between the eyes and the bill.
[5] Fossil records show that the bird may originally have occupied mamane forests on other islands.
[6] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Revised Palila Recovery Plan 2 (1986).
[7] Recent population figures for the Palila are as follows:
Year                                        Number
1980                                          3350
1984 (February)                               2022
1984 (July)                                   2021
1985 (January)                                1317
Revised Palila Recovery Plan at 7.
Dr. Stephen Mountainspring suggested that the population figures might be somewhat underestimated due to the placement of the random sampling transects.
The population may have experienced the dramatic spurt in 1981 because it was an exceptionally wet year, and thus that there was an overabundance of food. The population crashed back to normal the following year, which was dry.
[8] E.g., Test. of van Riper; test. of Scott.
The Revised Palila Recovery Plan, issued in 1986, suggested that population figures of the past four years may indicate a decline in Palila population. Revised Palila Recovery Plan at 6-7. Similarly, Dr. Charles van Riper, III, stated that because of its low numbers, very low fertility rate, restricted habitat, and continued habitat destruction, the bird is still close to its "critical population" or minimum sustainable population.
[9] The bird will also sometimes eat insects during months when mamane pods are scarce.
[10] Scott, Mountainspring, van Riper, III, Kepler, Jacobi, Burr, & Giffin, Annual Variation in the Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Response of the Palila, 101 The Auk 647 (Oct. 1984) [hereinafter Auk Study].
[11] Revised Palila recovery Plan at 64 (app. A).
The Revised Palila Recovery Plan exhibits some confusion as to the extent of the mamane forest on Mauna Kea. According to Dr. Charles van Riper, III, there are 545 km2 of mamane forest ecosystem remaining on the entire island of Hawaii, not on the slopes of Mauna Kea, as the Revised Plan states at page 5.
[12] There is also a fairly extensive mamane forest in the area near Pohakuloa flats, but for some unexplained reason, there are no Palila there. Experts suggest that the absence of birds may be due to site tenacity, thermal stress, disease, and/or military activity in the vicinity. Auk Study at 656, 661-62.
[13] Technically, the mouflon is not a feral ungulate, because it has never been domesticated.
[14] Most of the land on Mauna Kea within the Palila's critical habitat is under state ownership and control. The upper reaches of the mountain lie within the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve and Game Management Area. A portion of the land on the southeastern slopes has been surrendered to the United States Army for training purposes; the Hawaiian Homes Commission has jurisdiction over a portion of the southeastern slopes; and there is a small portion in the northeast corner that is privately owned by the Kukiau Ranch.
[15] The mouflon have roamed quite a bit over the years. In 1979, the sheep, estimated at 525, were located exclusively on the eastern slopes of the mountain. In January 1985, the sheep numbered approximately 466 and had spread all over the mountain; however, in that census, 301 of the sheep were located outside of, and only 165 within, the Palila critical habitat. Job Progress Report, Game Mammal Survey, Mauna Kea Game Management Area (7/1/85-6/30/86) (Defendant's Exhibit 3); test. of Walker.
[16] "Endangered species" means "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range...." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6) (1982).
[17] The Act defines "critical habitat" as "the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species ... on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5) (1982).
"Critical habitat" is further defined in 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (1985) as:
any air, land, or water area ... and constituent elements thereof, the loss of which would appreciably decrease the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a listed species or a distinct segment of its population: The constituent elements of critical habitat include, but are not limited to: physical structures and topography, biota, climate, human activity, and the quality and chemical content of land, water, and air. Critical habitat may represent any portion of the present habitat of a listed species and may include additional areas for reasonable population expansion.
[18] Although I already reached this conclusion at the summary judgment stage of the instant proceedings, Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 631 F. Supp. 787 (D.Hawaii 1985) (denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment), defendants continued to argue throughout trial that the amendment had worked a major substantive change in the law. Thus I feel it is necessary to elaborate more fully on my previous determination.
[19] See generally Field, The Evolution of the Wildlife Taking Concept from its Beginning to its Culmination in the Endangered Species Act, 21 Houston L.R. 457 (1984).
[20] 50 C.F.R. § 17.3, as quoted in Proposed Redefinition of "Harm," 46 Fed.Reg. 29,490 (1981) (proposed June 2, 1981).
[21] The Secretary's redefinition was prompted at least in part by my decision in Palila I. The legal memorandum, authored by the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, accompanying the proposed redefinition recommended that the "Service clarify its definition to prevent the result reached in Palila." 46 Fed.Reg. at 29,492. In promulgating the final redefinition, the Secretary explained that Palila I could "be read to incorrectly imply that under the Services [sic] definition of "harm" a taking may occur from habitat modification alone." 46 Fed.Reg. at 54,749.
This conclusion was not intended by my opinion. I believe that the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary misconstrued my finding, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981), that the presence of feral sheep and goats on Mauna Kea harmed the Palila. Contrary to the assertion made in the legal memorandum, I did not find that habitat modification alone caused harm to Palila. 46 Fed.Reg. at 29,492 n. 4. On the contrary, the evidence considered at the summary judgment hearing overwhelmingly showed that the feral animals had a drastic negative impact on the mamane forest which in turn injured the Palila by significantly disrupting its essential behavioral habits.
It is true that the evidence at the hearing was conflicting on the exact population figures for Palila. Plaintiffs argued that the population was at the critical population level; defendants argued that the population was in fact increasing. Based on this evidence, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary came to his own conclusion that there could be no "taking," presumably because there was no concrete evidence that Palila figures had recently declined. As discussed further infra, I do not read either the definition of "harm" that was in effect at the time or the current definition to require an actual decline in population of an endangered species. I believe the Secretary has clarified his position on this point in promulgating the final definition of "harm."
[22] The legal memorandum accompanying the proposed redefinition relied on, and I believe misconstrued, TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 98 S. Ct. 2279, 57 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1978), as supporting the proposed redefinition. In this case, the Supreme Court was primarily wrestling with section 7 of the Act which affirmatively required federal agencies to insure that their actions do not "jeopardize the continued existence" of an endangered species or "result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species...." 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (1976 ed.). However, the Court also indicated that the environmental effects resulting from Tellico Dam would also amount to a "taking" of the snail darter under section 9.
The district court below had found that the dam would "`result in the adverse modification, if not complete destruction, of the snail darter's critical habitat,' making it `highly probable' that `the continued existence of the snail darter' would be `jeopardize[d].'" 437 U.S. at 165-66, citing 419 F. Supp. 753, 757 (E.D.Tenn.1976). Specifically, the district court found that the snail darter needed a clear flowing river with a high oxygen content and that a reservoir would have a low oxygen content; that the high silt and low oxygen of a reservoir would be unsuitable for spawning; and that the snail darter's primary source of food would probably not survive in a reservoir environment. 437 U.S. at 165-66 n. 16, citing 419 F. Supp. at 756.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the definition of harm included "significant environmental modification or degradation" which "actually injures or kills wildlife" by "significantly disrupting essential behavioral patterns," and the Court noted: "We do not understand how TVA intends to operate Tellico without `harming' the snail darter." 437 U.S. at 184-85 n. 30, 98 S. Ct. at 2297 n. 30.
The Secretary found support for its proposed definition by "interpreting" the Supreme Court's statement "only to apply to the situation where an action would both degrade habitat and kill individual fish." 46 Fed.Reg. at 29,492 n. 2.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court's opinion evidences an understanding that habitat modification may prevent further procreation of the species or may decrease food supply, thus limiting the endangered species' population size. TVA v. Hill simply does not support a requirement that individual dead snail darters float atop the impounded reservoir.
[23] 46 Fed.Reg. 54,748, 54,748 (Nov. 4, 1981) (Final Redefinition of "Harm").
[24] For example, if the State were to mow the lawn within the Palila's critical habitat, this modification would not in and of itself result in a taking under section 9. There would have to be a showing of concomitant injury to Palila, such as a significant impairment of Palila breeding or feeding habits.
[25] J. Giffin, Final Report: Ecology of the Mouflon Sheep on Mauna Kea, (Pittman-Robinson Program No. W-17-R, Study No. R-III, 1979-79) (published in 1982 by State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife) at 23.
[26] One old ram was even observed to climb a mamane tree, teeter out on a horizontal limb, and browse on succulent leaves that could not be reached from below.
[27] Data suggests that the mouflon may experience a seasonal shift in preferred food, concentrating on grasses in the winter and spring and the mamane in the summer and fall.
[28] Giffin at 21-25, Scowcroft & Giffin, Feral Herbivores Suppress Mamane and Other Browse Species on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, 36 J. Range Management 638 (Sept.1983); Scott, Mountainspring, Ramsey & Kepler, Forest Bird Communities of the Hawaiian Islands: Their Dynamics, Ecology and Conservation at 359 [hereinafter Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8]; Revised Palila Recovery Plan at 15, 33-35; test. of van Riper; test. of Scott; test. of Jacobi; test. of Kepler; test. of Berger; test. of Giffin.
[29] Feral sheep tend to travel in large herds and to bed down together at night, thus crushing mamane seedlings and flattening large areas of native understory.
[30] Scowcroft & Giffin at 644.
[31] Revised Palila Recovery Plan at 15.
[32] Much of the existing damage on Mauna Kea has been caused by feral sheep over the past decades. It is difficult, then, to determine what damage is actually caused by mouflon. Experts testified, however, that in several areas, the damage could be attributed to the mouflon because the damage was fresh and there were many mouflon and few ferals in the area. Test. of Jacobi; Giffin at 24.
[33] Damage is particularly severe in the southeastern corner of the mountain near transects 110-113.
[34] Test. of Scowcroft; Maps of Browseline, Snags, and Regeneration on Mauna Kea (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10); Giffin at 23-25.
[35] Since the state has maintained the feral sheep, and now the mouflon sheep, for hunting purposes, it developed exclosures, or fenced areas, to study the impact the animals have on the ecosystem. Several of these exclosures are located in prime mouflon territory, and the contrast between the vegetation inside the exclosure, which has been protected from grazing, and outside the exclosure is dramatic. For example, the Puu Kole exclosure near transect 110 is within an area of heavy mouflon density. The land outside the exclosure is devoid of mamane, littered with snags, has no regeneration and is nearly barren of vegetation. Inside the exclosure, which was fenced in 1963, are numerous mamane, a healthy understory, and vigorous regrowth. In the absence of grazing pressure, the mamane achieved a 25% canopy coverage through natural regeneration within twelve years. Similarly, at the Wailuku exclosure, near transect 113, research indicates a 50% survival rate for new mamane seedlings inside the exclosure, and a 0% survival rate outside where the seedlings are eaten by mouflon. Scowcroft & Giffin; Giffin at 24; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 (photographs); test. of Scowcroft.
[36] The State's experts estimated that the State would have to maintain 250 sheep, at the very minimum, for a viable sport hunting program, although the sheep's current approximate population of 475-525 would be preferable. Test. of Bachman; test. of Walker.
[37] Test. of Scowcroft; test. of Kepler; test. of van Riper.
[38] The Palila's continued existence is threatened even at its current levels. The population is close to that minimum number necessary for the survival of the species. In addition, at this low level, the bird is critically susceptible to the influence of disease, environmental stress, drought, and other limiting factors.
[39] The Revised Palila Recovery Plan recommends that Palila may be taken off the Endangered Species List when the population has achieved a density of 25 birds/km2 throughout the 200 km2 critical habitat continuously for five years. The population will undoubtedly have to be much larger than 5000 birds in order to satisfy the recommended density and distribution levels, and may need to be as high as 14,000-20,000 birds. Revised Palila Recovery Plan at 26; test. of Berger.
[40] For example, the State has instituted a mamane replanting program that is meeting with some success. Since 1979, the State has planted over 6000 mamane trees on 70 acres of the critical habitat, and they have maintained nine fenced exclosures of 4.5 acres each. They have begun a fog drip project to capture moisture to encourage native vegetation. They are continuing efforts to fence the entire Palila critical habitat to keep feral sheep and other ungulates out and to improve their ability to manage the mouflon herd. In addition, they have removed some of the hunting restrictions on mouflon sheep, allowing more mouflon to be taken.
[41] Defendants' experts testified to and introduced photographs and a video showing healthy mamane stands and evidence of regeneration in various areas on the mountain. On the other hand, plaintiffs experts introduced photographs showing desert-like conditions on the mountain with large areas devoid of mamane. They argued that defendants' pictures showing regeneration were taken near roads, where sheep are less prevalent, and that there is no evidence of significant recovery of the mamane.
[42] The multiple-use approach has been embraced in many areas of environmental management. However, multiple use poses particular problems in a small fragile island ecosystem, such as Hawaii. Because of geographic isolation, islands develop unique endemic ecosystems. Populations of plants and animals are smaller, less stable, and more susceptible to disruption. Human interference has substantial negative impact on native flora and fauna not only through direct habitat destruction, but also through the introduction of non-native plant and animal species. Thus native island ecosystems are much more vulnerable to multiple use than are larger continental ecosystems where the biota has had millenia to adjust to human interference. Juvik & Juvik, Mauna Kea and the Myth of Multiple Use: Endangered Species and Mountain Management in Hawaii, 4 Mountain Research and Development 191 (August 1984).
Hawaii, then, represents a unique and fragile ecosystem. There are more endangered and extinct species here than anywhere else in North America. Out of 70 indigenous bird species found here in the nineteenth century, 26 are extinct and 30 are on the Endangered Species List, for a total of 56 out of 70 endangered or extinct birds. By comparison, continental North America has 24 endangered bird species. Test. of Berger; 50 C.F.R. § 17.11 (1985).
[43] Dr. Mountainspring vacillated somewhat on this issue. At his deposition, he testified that mouflon were biologically harming the Palila. In addition, he participated in writing two reports which advocated the complete removal of mouflon sheep from the Palila habitat. Auk Study at 662; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8 at 359. On the stand, however, he testified somewhat differently. He agreed that the mouflon are degrading the mamane forest, that the degradation is irreversible because there is no regeneration, and that if nothing is done to alter the present situation, the mouflon will drive Palila into extinction. However, he testified that mouflon were not "harming" Palila, at least in terms of the Code of Federal Regulations definition, because the sheep are not actually killing the birds. He further testified that he did not agree with the conclusions of the two reports which he had co-authored. Instead, he stated that mouflon did not pose a threat to Palila if they were properly managed.
[44] Test. of Giffin; Giffin & Scowcroft at 644; Revised Palila Recovery Plan at 35.
[45] Giffin at 28-29; test. of Giffin.
[46] Giffin at 28-29.
[47] Test. of Giffin; test. of Bachman; test. of Walker.
Whereas defendants experts were unclear as to the impact that 15 sheep/mi2 would have on the mamane and the Palila, plaintiffs' experts were adamant that this number of sheep would bring about Palila's extinction. Although some experts conceded that perhaps a "very small number" of sheep could coexist with Palila, this number would not be a viable hunting population. Plaintiffs experts, approaching the question from a biological viewpoint, stressed that the bird was presently in such "dire straits" that it needed as pristine a habitat as possible on the mountain. Given the extremely poor condition of the forest, plaintiffs experts agreed that there was "no room for compromise:" At present, the presence of any mouflon sheep on Mauna Kea would "significantly threaten" the Palila's prospects for recovery and survival.
Plaintiffs' experts acknowledged that there are other negative influences, many of them uncontrollable, that affect the Palila and its environment. Drought, thermal and climatic conditions, and avian disease may harm the Palila; drought, fire, caterpillars and larvae may adversely affect the mamane. However, they argued that the fact that there are numerous factors that may imperil the bird only heightens the imperative to eliminate those factors over which man has some control. Moreover, the evidence shows that the primary threat to Palila is habitat destruction and that mouflon sheep, which are controllable, are the primary cause of this degradation.
[48] In the absence of sheep, the mamane forest should recover in 30-50 years. In ten to twelve years, new mamane seedlings will grow a few pods. In 25 years, the trees will be strong enough to support a Palila nest. In 30-50 years, the mamane will be tall enough so that they cannot be topped by sheep, and the new forest may have sufficiently regenerated to withstand some grazing. Test. of van Riper; test. of Berger; test. of Jacobi.
[49] See supra footnote 2.


It is well known that exposure to high levels of air pollutants raises the risk of physical illnesses such as respiratory infections, lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, dementia and Alzheimer. However, there are new studies suggesting that air pollution is responsible for mental illnesses too.
Back in 1970 Lead Pb (from the Latin plumbum) was used to be added in the petrol fossil fuel, as a result, it was later associated for contributing to behavioral problems, learning difficulties and lowered IQ among children.
In recent years, Sulphur Dioxide SO2, has been associated with a high risk of hospital admissions for mental disorders in Shanghai.
In another study, which has been conducted in California in 2017, they found a correlation between Particulate Matter PM2.5 air pollutants and adolescent delinquent behavior, of course, the relationships between parents and children play a key rule too.
It is now believed that the exposure to air pollutants can cause inflammation in the brain. In addition, fine particulate matter PM2.5 and PM1.0 can damage neural networks and influence behavior.
Today, scientists are able to predict Criminal Activity & Unethical Behavior by using air pollution variables. Their conclusion is: Air pollution not only corrupts people's health, but also can contaminate their morality.
Finally, by comparing data for 1.8 milion crimes over two years with air pollution, temperature, humidity and rainfall data from London's streets they came to the conclusion that levels of crime in London are higher on the most polluted days.


In the pride of accomplishment that comes with mastering a medium, many artists and crafters forget that one of the most important components of success is being able to convince others to buy their work. While reducing one's art to dollars and cents may seem crude, vulgar, and a violation of the purity of the art form, nonetheless, being able to sell your work marks the difference between an amateur and a pro.
But how to sell? How do you get the word out that you have a product for sale? The usual routes (craft shows, eBay, Etsy, a website, a blog, Facebook) are excellent ideas and should be used to the fullest extent possible. But is there anything new in the marketing arena for crafters?
I spoke with a number of successful artists and crafters to get their suggestions on successful marketing for artists and crafters.
Internationally recognized artist and designer Pablo Solomon (www.pablosolomon.com) noted the two biggest mistakes artists and crafters make are not to approach their career as a business, and to fail to understand that arts/crafts success is based on one thing and one thing only--name recognition.
"I am now the most well-known 'Pablo' in art since Picasso," noted Solomon. "This did not happen overnight. It was the result of tenacious and relentless efforts, especially over the last 10 years, to build name recognition."
Solomon and his work have been featured in dozens of books, magazines, and newspapers, as well as on TV, radio, and film. He is now in the enviable position of having galleries approach him since he brings hundreds of thousands of dollars in free publicity to the galleries that show his work.
Solomon has built this name recognition by using every possible contact. His wife Beverly (www.beverlysolomon.com), a former model and sales executive for several major fashion, design, and makeup companies, brings a wide field of networking potential. Working as a team, Pablo's art and Beverly's advertising savvy have resulted in a formidable and impressive stamp within the art world.
"I am now the most well-known 'Pablo' in art since Picasso. This did not happen overnight. It was the result of tenacious and relentless efforts, especially over the last 10 years, to build name recognition."
"My name recognition has moved my prices from chump change to a range in which I can make a good living," noted Solomon. "By supplying writers, editors, and publishers with good information, interesting stories and great photographs, we have been seen in print by more than 100 million people, and on the Internet by tens of millions more. We also have built name recognition by working with charities and even working with law enforcement to solve art theft cases."
Solomon acknowledges that all the name recognition in the world will not do an artist or crafter any good if their product isn't high quality. But there are hundreds of thousands of excellent artists and crafters who misuse their money, trying to gain recognition. "If you spend money on promotions or advertising, make certain that you spend it wisely ... Research what publications will give you the best chances of reaching your target audience. It is not your job to promote galleries; it is their job to promote you. The reason you are paying them a commission is to promote and sell your work. Do not be conned into paying for shows, wall space, advertising, etc., and still pay a high commission."
Never underestimate the buying power of keeping one's craft in line with one's personal convictions. Niche marketing toward people with a passion can be highly effective. Hawaiian jewelry artist Mckenna Hallett learned this when she started her business in 1992, making wearable eco-art out of repurposed objects.
"I make wearable art from found objects," said Hallett. "I use no fossil fuels, and my tools are hand- or foot-powered. I am known as the queen of repurposing, and it is an easy selling point. To date, I have sold over 40,000 pieces of my jewelry. People buy because of my point-of-sale packaging, as well as the fun and informative 'story card' inside each package. Gift giving is surprisingly common."
Hallett successfully tapped into the strong green market of those who prefer recycled or repurposed items. She also learned early on to focus on wholesale markets. "But my marketing has some specific nuances," she noted. "For one thing, I test-market every single design very thoroughly. I personally sell direct to guests at a local upscale hotel venue on Maui. If an item sells with a full 2.25 markup, then I let it into various local shops on consignment on each of my islands. Only when I have seen a strong response and multiple sales in those shops, does the item make the wholesale line. My background as a sales director and store buyer in my previous life informs my desire to discriminate and properly test every design. I understand the value of retail showcases."
"I have a quote by Arthur Sheldon over my studio bench: 'He profits most who serves best.'"
- Mckenna Hallett But even within the wholesale side of things, Hallett does not put all her eggs in one basket. "In the early days of my business, I landed an account with Neiman Marcus. They wanted to expand, but I could not keep up with even one location. I learned a valuable lesson: Don't put all those time-consuming products into one buyer. I realized I needed to remove my line and concentrate on having several accounts in several regions to be safe financially."
Hallett also endeavors to keep her business in line with her ethics. "To this day, I say 'no' to inquiries much more than 'yes,' so that I can be sure that my limited production always finds a good home within a like-minded shop and community," she said. "I want every piece purchased to have the potential to be an ambassador of my message: STOPrecycling (www.stoprecycling.com). That message is what I am truly hoping to market above and beyond my jewelry. I have a quote by Arthur Sheldon over my studio bench: 'He profits most who serves best.' This is especially true when serving our planet's needs."
People like to feel important, and involving customer feedback in a business model is one of the finest ways to market one's products.
Fiber artist Tara Swiger (www.taraswiger.com) regularly requests her customers' involvement in her business. "I'll ask my followers on Twitter to help me name a yarn I've spun," she said. "I then thank the person who named it (and that Tweet often leads to a direct sale). I also hold a yearly event where I ask for name suggestions for yarns I'll spin, and anyone who suggests a name that I use gets 50-percent off his or her next purchase. I then release these yarns, one a day for almost a month, and they sell out as soon as I send the e-mails."
Swiger has turned her internet following into the feel of a big happy family through her personal contact, customer involvement, and above all her folksy style, which is obvious even through her online presence. "I do a lot of direct sales via e-mail," she noted. "I grew tired of the Etsy model of sales: Make the product, take the picture, wait for it to sell, and when it does, pack it all up and ship it. So I moved to sales when I wanted them. Once a month, I send my 'Yarn Love Note' e-mail messages with one yarn that's available. Anyone can order it that week, and at the end of the week, I make up the yarns and ship them. It provides my customers with an exclusive yarn and a way to connect directly with the artist (me). It allows me to schedule in my making and shipping times."
Fiber artist Tara Swiger regularly requests her customers' involvement in her business. "I'll ask my followers on Twitter to help me name a yarn I've spun, " she said.
"Every waking moment is a marketing opportunity."
- Samantha Camp It may appear counterintuitive to give away your product in order to sell it. But for Samantha Camp of Pip and Lola's Everything Homemade (www.pipandlola.etsy.com), she's learned that being generous yields big results.
"We do everything we can to market our business as cheaply and efficiently as possible," noted Camp. "We give countless free soap samples out to passersby in our shopping center, and we pass out samples to organizations needing 'swag' for events. We donate free soaps to raffle baskets for nonprofits. We buy advertising in local community theatre programs. We have 'fundraiser' soaps that we make for local nonprofits, and allow them to sell them in our store and on their sites."
This blitz of generosity marks Pip and Lola as charitable, community-minded, and caring. Customers love doing business with businesses they can trust, and there is no finer way to establish a big-hearted reputation than to be ... well, bighearted.
But Camp doesn't neglect the importance of the Internet in marketing as well. "We have a blog (www.pipandlolas.com), and we have an 'Item of the Day' that we focus on from our shop. We use social media (specifically Facebook and Twitter) for product updates, sales, and photos, photos, and more photos. We place Craigslist ads. We pay for Facebook ads. We have Constant Contact for our e-mail database. We attend Farmers' Markets and talk up our shop to people who stop by our booth (and give them a soap sample). We write press releases. We create YouTube videos showcasing our handmade items and post those throughout social media. Every waking moment is a marketing opportunity."
Paper crafter, show organizer, and author Grace Dobush (www.graciesparkles.etsy.com) relies heavily on social media to promote her projects. "It's important for anyone trying to make a living from a crafts business to have really solid Web and social media presences," she noted. "I see a lot of crafters struggling with social media--often it's just a last-minute 'Now available in the shop!' post that doesn't turn into any clicks. That's why it's so important for crafters to think about the bigger picture of what story they want to tell. When you share things that are interesting, people are much more likely to pay attention."
Do separate business from personal. Set up a Facebook page for your business--you manage it through your personal Facebook account, but it serves as a public face for your business. People can like your page to see your news without you having to add them as your friends. If you also use Twitter, set up a separate Twitter account for your business if your Tweets currently tend to be more personal.
Do put links to your social media accounts everywhere. Make sure they're in your e-mail signature, your personal social profiles, on your website, and in your Etsy shop.
Do share plenty of pictures. People love to see pretty photos of new pieces and works in progress--I like to take pictures with the free app, Instagram, and then share them on Twitter and Facebook.
"... It's so important for crafters to think about the bigger picture of what story they want to tell. When you share things that are interesting, people are much more likely to pay attention."
Do use third-party apps to streamline your social work. Apps such as Hootsuite, Tweetdeck, and Buffer let you schedule posts in advance and manage multiple social media accounts at once. Any social media pro will tell you they're real timesavers.
Don't create more social media accounts than you can handle. If you have a handle on Facebook but don't have the time to add Twitter and Instagram, don't worry about it. One well-maintained social media account is much better than four neglected accounts. And if your audience is much more active on Twitter than any other network, go where they are!
Don't use social media just for self-promotion. Communicating with your fans should be a dialogue, not a monologue. You should be checking in on your accounts every day to answer your customers' questions quickly and reply to comments. You're a human being, not a "spammy" marketing robot!
Don't go crazy with giveaways. Some social media "experts" will recommend doing contests or giveaways to drum up followers, but it's easy to go broke that way, and people who only respond to contests aren't necessarily the followers you want. Sharing stories and being interesting are the best ways to create an audience that will stick with you.
Don't get left behind. The social media landscape is constantly changing, so stay up-to-date with trends by following blogs such as TechCrunch (www.techcrunch.com/social) or Mashable (www.mashable.com/social-media).
In my opinion, one of the most brilliant slogans ever invented was Nike's "Just Do It." That's because far more people like to talk than do.
Marketing takes action. It takes critical analysis and intelligent decisions. Advice from established and successful artists and crafters is all fine and good, but won't benefit anyone unless that advice is taken and acted upon.
For anyone trying to market their work in this tough economy, the best thing you can do is read everything you can on marketing, take the advice that applies to your particular craft, and sink yourself into the fascinating and rewarding world of selling your products and yourself.


"Trial Harbour left holds plenty of size, and can have hollow sections on clean swell. Fun walling type of wave with shifting peaks over large takeoff area.
Also a right reef further in on opposite side of small bay from left. The right peaks out from a group of rocks and breaks into the bay.
(1: Trial Harbour is a fickle surf spot that only works a few times a year. 5: Reliable year-round spot).
(1: Trial Harbour is usually very poor quality compared to other spots in West Coast of Tasmania. 5: the best break in West Coast of Tasmania).
(1: even a light onshore ruins the surf. 5: Trial Harbour can offer better rides with a light wind behind them).
(1: If wind or tide conditions are poor at Trial Harbour, it will be poor everywhere nearby. 5: other locations nearby provide a rich variety of wind and swell exposures).
(1: An unsuitable spot. 5: Wind and wave conditions at Trial Harbour are often excellent).
(1: Often too crowded. 5: Trial Harbour is an isolated spot where you are unlikely to meet other surfers).
(1: Getting to Trial Harbour requires an overland expedition or chartering a boat. 3: A 30 minute walk from the nearest parking. 5: Park a vehicle right by the break).
(1: No convenient places to stay indoors. 5: A wide variety of accommodation near Trial Harbour for all budgets from hostels to luxury hotels).
(1: Camping at Trial Harbour is not possible. 3: Camping tolerated but no facilities. 5: A nearby camp ground has excellent facilities and a good vibe).
(1: Besides the surf and the solitude there is nothing to do when it is flat. 5: Trial Harbour is in such an interesting area to visit that getting wet is a bonus).
(1: Bring your own food, there isn't even a shop. 5: A wide variety of places to eat and drink at Trial Harbour, from fast food and cafes to fancy restaurants).
(1: Alcohol is not allowed in the country. 5: There is an excellent pub near Trial Harbour where you can stay or park a camper van overnight).


A couple of months ago, Brother Nicholas Crowe OP started in his role as Vocations Promoter for the English Province. In this online interview we find out about Brother Nick's current apostolate and the inspiration behind his work.
Nicholas, what are your current responsibilities in the Order?
At the moment, I co-ordinate the Dominican Youth Movement in the UK. We run a series of events up and down the country aimed at students and young adults. The next one is a Scripture study weekend at the Carmelite Priory, Boars Hill (just outside Oxford) from the 4th - 6th December. I am also the vocations promoter and director for the English Province of the Order of Preachers.
Which great Dominican provides the inspiration for your work?
Saint Thomas Aquinas is my great intellectual hero. It was through studying Saint Thomas that I first began to see how the teachings of the Church weave together into a coherent vision of the Christian life that has at its core the summons to follow Jesus. I suppose all of my work in some form or other is aimed at helping young people to hear that same call to discipleship in their own lives.
What is your biggest challenge for the year ahead?
When it comes to work with young people the biggest challenges are often the most exciting projects. From an organizational point of view World Youth Day will be a big deal, but also a wonderful opportunity. Closer to home, we ran our first 'Illumination' retreat at Leicester last weekend for students and young adults and another is planned for the new year. This is a new project that we hope will complement our more theologically focused study weekends by offering a more all-round formational experience. We had a great start in Leicester and hope the coming year will give us the chance to share the riches of the Dominican tradition with university groups all over the UK.
That sounds very exciting. But I wonder: how do you find a balance between your prayer life, community life and your mission?
I think the key to maintaining a balance between prayer, common life, and mission is to establish really good habits. I find that the best time for prayer is first thing in the morning so I make sure I have a good long stretch of prayer before settling down for work for the day. London is a small enough community for our common life to be somewhat informal. We all cram around the coffee pot each morning once we've finished prayer, we all have dinner together in the evenings, there are two weekly gatherings called 'recreations' where we all meet in the common room to have a chat and maybe a beer and so on. These things just happen as part of the community's routine of living and working together. Mission, however, requires a bit more of a pro-active approach. Ideally, we would always be on the lookout for opportunities to preach the Gospel. This enthusiasm for a continual sharpening of one's apostolic edge is something that I think needs to be deliberately chosen and cultivated, and it relies on our religious life in general being well balanced. Without time to pray, study, and relax one can easily become jaded.
Finally, Advent is almost here, Christmas is on the horizon. What book would your recommend for Christmas?
What about some spiritual reading? I would recommend 'St. Bernard's Three-Course Banquet: Humility, Charity, and Contemplation in the De Gradibus', Bernard Bonowitz, OCSO, Liturgical Press 2013.


Burgess Mature Dog Rich in Chicken helps ease the effects of ageing helping mobility, gum health and maintaining a healthy body. Plus we have basted the kibbles in meat juice for extra lip-licking deliciousness!
Wheat, Maize, Chicken meal (min 4%), Peas, Beet Pulp, Fish Meal, Soya Hulls*, Poultry Fat, Wheat Feed, Brewer's Yeast, Linseed (2.5%), Chicken liver digest, Hipro Soya*, Dicalcium Phosphate, Salt, Limestone, Fructo-Oligosaccharides (0.2%), Herbs (min 0.2%), Oatfeed Glucosamine 400 mg/kg, Yucca Extract 250 mg/kg & Mannan-Oligosaccharides 2000 mg/kg.


These little chocolate acorns are super quick and easy to make. They're as delicious as they are adorable.
I took them to work yesterday and they were all gone by lunch!
1. Unwrap the Hershey's Kisses.
2. Dab a small amount of chocolate frosting/melted chocolate on the underside a mini vanilla wafer. Gently press the bottom of a Hershey's Kiss onto the chocolate.
3. Dab a small amount of chocolate on the bottom of a peanut butter baking chip and press onto the middle of the top of the vanilla wafer. Repeat with remaining ingredients.
Voila! Adorable, edible chocolate acorns!
Based off of the recipe from Hershey's.


text:
Q: ActiveRecord: Invalid date when querying varchar This gives me strange error.
> Customer.where(:my_text_field => "05007062").first
> Customer Load (0.9ms)  SELECT `customers`.* FROM `customers` WHERE `customers`.`my_text_field` = '05007062' LIMIT 1
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql2::Error: Invalid date: 2012-00-00 00:00:00: SELECT  `customers`.* FROM `customers`  WHERE `customers`.`my_text_field` = '05007062' LIMIT 1
...

Does anyone know why could that be? I don't see any date in the query. Also, this happens only in production and not on development machine (both running linux).
I'm using Rails 3.1.0 and mysql2 0.3.10

A: Sounds like you may have some corrupted data in one of the records on your prod server. Do you have some other code that creates records in the db - including a date?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


It looks like next-generation smartphones are allergic to headphone jacks.
Now after iPhone 7 and the iPhone 7 Plus, another big smartphone manufacturer is going to ditch headphone jack.
According to reports, Samsung's next-generation Galaxy S8 will not feature a 3.5mm headphone jack. This means that all of your existing headphones will not be compatible with the upcoming flagship unless you use a USB Type-C adapter.
This is not the first time Samsung takes design inspiration from Apple and removing the 3.5mm headphone jack enables Samsung to make the Galaxy S8 thinner while also freeing up more space inside for a bigger battery.
In the Android series, phones like Lenovo's Moto Z and Moto Z Force and China's LeEco have already scrapped the 3.5mm headphone jack.
SamMobile also notes a few other rumors, like that the phone might ship with stereo speakers as a result of no headphone jack, and that it won't feature a home button. It might also have a fingerprint sensor embedded in its 2K Super AMOLED display. SamMobile says the new screen will have the same resolution, but will no longer have a PenTile layout, which should improve sharpness, especially in VR.
Samsung is going to officially unveil the Galaxy S8 in February next year at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.


text:
package com.dolbz.jenumerable.helpers;

import java.util.Iterator;

public class ThrowingIterable<T> implements Iterable<T> {

	public Iterator<T> iterator() {
		return new ThrowingIterator();
	}

	private class ThrowingIterator implements Iterator<T> {

		public boolean hasNext() {
			return true;
		}

		public T next() {
			throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
		}

		public void remove() {
			throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
		}

	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Fully Furnished upper level corner condo with 1 bedroom 1 bath located inside Breezy Point Resort on the lake. Wonderful views and close proximity to the marina to enjoy wonder entertainment.
Rental seasons include Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall.
Gorgeous Lake O'Brien cabin, 2 hours from Mpls, Pontoon Included!
Summer is filling up fast! Family vacation, golf trip, weekend away, book now!!
Stay On The Point! Water In Front And Back! Two Docks, Kayaks, Paddle Boards!
Relax in the Most Serene, Beautiful, Spacious Cabin-Whitefish!
Cabin on Rush Lake - INCLUDES PONTOON!! Completely Remodeled & Sleeps 8.
NEW! Lakefront & Pet-Friendly Hines Cabin w/ Dock!


Our White Wizard Wit meets with Raspberries and a kiss of Beet Juice (for color), creating a beer that is quite Witty in Pink. This seasonal release is focused around an October release with proceeds benefiting the Go Pink! charity. Keep your eyes open though as this beer can be released anytime during the year in draft!


text:
The Brussel Formation (; ; abbreviation: Br) is a geologic formation in the subsurface of central Belgium. The formation is named after the Belgian capital, Brussels. It consists of shallow marine sandstone and calcareous sands, deposited in the sea that covered Belgium 45 million years ago, in the Eocene.

The Brussel Formation crops out in Walloon Brabant and the north of the provinces of Namur and Hainaut. It is normally about 30 metres in thickness. In Flemish Brabant and Antwerp the formation can be found in the subsurface.

The Brussel Formation is subdivided into five members: the Archennes Member (conglomerates), the Bois de la Houssière Member (quartzites), the Chaumont-Gistoux Member (glauconiferous quartzites), the Diegem Member (glauconiferous quartzite) and the Neerijse Member (glauconiferous calcareous sand). The formation consists either of cross-bedded non-calcareous sands alternating with thin beds of marl and clay or calcareous fine sands with traces of bioturbation.

The formation was formed during the early Lutetian age (about 46 million years ago) and is part of the Zenne Group. Stratigraphically on top of the Brussel Formation is the Lede Formation (also part of the Zenne Group), or when this formation is absent the Maldegem Formation (Bartonian) or Tongeren Group (Priabonian to Rupelian). The Brussel Formation is normally lying stratigraphically on top of the Aalter Formation (part of the Zenne Group) or deposits of the Ieper Group.

See also
List of sedimentary formations in Belgium

References

Bibliography
 Laga, P.; Louwye, S. & Geets, S. (eds.); 2001: Paleogene and Neogene lithostratigraphic units (Belgium), Geologica Belgica 4(1-2), p. 135-152

Geologic formations of Belgium
Eocene Series of Europe
Paleogene Belgium

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Building an award-winning workplace is possible in any field, but it requires thoughtful and deliberate decisions about your company culture.
Button just topped Crain's New York's 100 Best Places to Work in New York City list this year, and co-founder Stephen Milbank took some time out of his day to share some insights into what makes Button an amazing place to work, and some advice on how you can apply the same principals to your workplace.
Milbank began by expressing how happy he is with the quality of the people Button has been able to assemble and keep on their team, and how important a factor that has been in making Button a great place to work.
"They're all highly talented, with enjoyable personalities," he said.
Another crucial element of the equation is having a common goal and purpose that everyone is engaged in and pushing for.
While everyone brings different skill sets and focuses to the table, we've been able to channel that to serve a common goal. Having a shared purpose—one that's clear—makes it a really enjoyable place to do work.
Milbank explained that when everyone feels empowered to make meaningful contributions toward shared goals, they're able to bring out the best version of themselves.
Button endeavors to create a structure where everyone feels like they're growing personally, succeeding professionally, and thriving in their personal lives with families and friends as well. "Helping to make people feel fulfilled in the components of their lives where we can, and allowing them the resources to succeed outside work is one way that we've been particularly successful in creating a very happy and productive workplace."
Button has grown from a small team of just six to nearly 30, but continues to foster a close knit sense of community and family. Milbank was quoted by Crain's as saying, "When you join Button, you join a family."
Recognizing the benefits that strong familial relationships have on all aspects of our lives, from perspective and grounding to health and wellbeing, Button focused on family balance as one of its guiding principles.
This guiding principle helps employees to understand it's not only acceptable, but encouraged to take the actions that they need to take in order to ensure their family life is in balance.
Button backs up this up with one of the most generous parental support policies in the industry. In the office, Button maintains a family-like atmosphere, as well.
Making the workplace like a family helps people become more empathetic to the volatility of anyone's life. Someone may have events in life that result in a week where they weren't delivering the best product.
If you're close to that person, and you treat them like family, you're going to be more thoughtful towards them. There will be weeks when you cover for them, and there are going to be times when they cover for you.
The long-term view is an underlying theme in how Button's founders decided to shape the business and what they've emphasized over time. The effects of these choices Their effects reverberate across all areas.
"If you're always thinking about the immediate short-term deadlines, you fail to recognize what the consequences to that are. Nothing can be more corrosive on an employee's productivity than an unbalanced or unhappy personal life," he said.
If you're creating an environment where someone is never able to go home and relax—where they work all sorts of crazy hours—the other people in their lives are going to be unhappy. This will nag at a person. It's going to distract them, and they are not going to be as efficient or productive or satisfied in what they are doing. Ultimately over the long term, that's going to be more detrimental to the business than not working the extra hours.
Button takes a long-term view with its unlimited vacation days policy, as well.
Concerned about feedback that unlimited vacation policies often turn into a catch-22, where employees feel less inclined to take time off, Button offers family travel stipends of $500 for each employee plus another $500 if the employee is married or has children.
These stipends help to reinforce that the company really wants employees to take time away from work, and that taking that time is just as important as coming to work.
Moreover, Milbank feels that by giving employees unlimited time off, they'll actually take time off when they or their family members are sick. It's a mistaken impression that you're doing something good, or "taking one for the team," by working through being sick. It's generally the opposite.
Some well-meaning policies like grouping personal and sick days can even lead to some fairly perverse outcomes, where employees will come to work sick to avoid losing one of their allotted days off. "There is probably nothing worse than when someone comes in sick and then gets everybody else sick," he mentioned.
We have a pretty open policy where you can take those days off and not put other people at risk. By doing stuff like that, you allow people to be more responsible. They are going to act on the side of caution, which is ultimately better for the organization.
The first few weeks of an employee's tenure are crucial for their successful integration. Button helps new hires get up to speed and feel welcomed quickly with a strong onboarding program. "A lot of the tools that we've put out there, and the process in which we onboard employees is a way of helping people get up that integration curve a lot faster," Milbank said.
Within the first week, a new employee gets introduced to every single division of the company. A welcome book introduces each member of the team in a light manner, so that people don't feel as foreign.
We also have someone outside of the chain of command serve as a mentor to help new hires transition to being part of the organization, as well as casual outreach from members of all teams to help facilitate that process of becoming part of the whole.
I think that once you can get someone understanding the information, and feeling comfortable much faster, they can be more productive for the organization.
Having grown from a team of six to roughly 30, Button has been able to maintain a strong culture as it grows, and Milbank attributes their monthly retrospective process as a major contributing factor to that success.
"About a week after the end of every month, we highlight what went well, what didn't go well, and ideas for improvement. Every member of the team contributes."
He explained how helpful it can be to provide multiple formats for employees to let their voices be heard. "Not only does this help support the underlying goals of the organization as it continually tries to improve and adapt, it also empowers all of the employees to have a voice," Milbank said.
The process also gives everyone free reign to say what they want, and how they want the organization to evolve. In the day-to-day, we have a value of speaking boldly and honestly, but you need to understand that people have different comfort levels regarding taking advantage of a forum.
It's not just about looking back. Milbank wants the Button team to feel empowered to influence change in the organization's future by contributing to goal setting.
"It's by no means a purely democratic process," he said. "But it is a process we use to understand what they want to focus on, and what the direction of the company should be. By knowing that, people feel closer to the responsibilities that are guiding this organization and feel more powerful about their ownership of the organization."
He stressed that this feeling of ownership within the company, and shared sense of purpose ultimately translates into the understanding that maximum contribution is worthwhile.
I think the worst thing that you can do in an organization is make people feel that their influence doesn't matter.
When people feel that their influence doesn't matter, their enthusiasm for contributing declines, and then you just have people working and effectively punching the time clock. And that's exactly what we do not want to create.
Button employees are encouraged to attend professional development courses and expand their knowledge at every opportunity.
It's important to be intellectually satisfied—there always needs to be new stimulus. You don't want people becoming static. "Most people who have taken the risk of joining a startup want to improve, grow, and help build the company. They're going on a journey of development, both with the company and for themselves," Milbank said.
People who are well informed about the world around them make better decisions across the board. We are the sum of our various influences and if you aren't trying to expand your knowledge base, then you're going to fall behind.
Most people in this organization aren't going be happy just treading water. They constantly want more, and we need to provide them with more in order to help them be happy and growing.
Button is unquestionably a fantastic place to work, and this sentiment is reflected in its employees, its leadership, and its recent Crain's award. I asked Milbank to share one final, summative piece of advice for others who are working to build their own exceptional company culture.
Be true to yourself. And in that I mean build a culture that represents your personal values—something that you feel like you can live to, want to celebrate, and want to be proud of every single day. Something you're comfortable to share with the world. A lot of people get caught up in what is 'reasonable' or 'acceptable.' What we've tried to do is understand the world around us, and make sure our values are represented in everything we do, and be bold in what those values and choices are.


Aaron Lewis and Blackberry Smoke are teaming up this fall for a joint co-headlining tour. The Sinners and Sanctified Tour will begin on Oct. 12 at Shreveport's Municipal Auditorium and run through Nov. 17.
Stops on the trek include New York City, Philadelphia, Charlotte and Houston, among others. Tickets go on sale on Friday (July 21) at 10AM local time.
Lewis will be performing songs off his most recent No. 1 Billboard Top 200 album, Sinner. His 2016 release included collaborations with Willie Nelson, Alison Krauss, Dan Tyminski and Vince Gill. Blackberry Smoke saw similar success on their release Like an Arrow, which debuted at No. 1 on both Billboard's Country Albums and Americana Albums charts.
Recently, Lewis released a new song to honor fallen soldiers on Flag Day. The singer-songwriter offered a snippet of "Folded Flag" via his Facebook page on June 14, the day he released the track digitally.
Complete dates and cities for Lewis and Blackberry Smoke's joint Sinners and Sanctified Tour are below.


Patrick, a former litigation paralegal with over 30 years of experience, is an electronic discovery knowledge and strategy manager. As the paralegal manager at Mayer Brown from 1997 to 2007, he worked heavily on civil litigations, government investigations, discovery matters, and trial preparation. In 2007, he transitioned to his current role in order to concentrate on assisting clients and litigation teams navigate the electronic discovery process. Prior to joining Mayer Brown, he was a paralegal at two large law firms located in New York and California from 1986 to 1997. During those years, he was a lead paralegal on several high-profile mergers and acquisitions involving Second Request submissions, Qui Tam Act (False Claims Act) investigations involving defense contractors and several federal and state court trials. Throughout his career, Patrick has focused on using advanced technologies to manage cases and investigations. Most recently many of these matters involve data protection laws and cyber security issues.


"Espacenet offers free access to more than 80 million patent documents worldwide, containing information about inventions and technical developments from 1836 to today.About Espacenet (Video) Espacenet Assistant"
"The EPO has developed a new ""Y02"" classification scheme, dedicated to climate change mitigation technologies, which enables a continuous and reliable flow of data on selected technologies and their application in the energy field.Tutorial - Y02: A new classification scheme for climate change mitigation technologies Y-Classification System"
"The Access to Research for Development and Innovation (ARDI) program is coordinated by WIPO together with its partners in the publishing industry with the aim to increase the availability of scientific and technical information in developing countries. "
WIPO GREEN is an interactive marketplace that promotes innovation and diffusion of green technologies. You can use this database and network to connect with technology and service providers, or advertise your needs.
These statistical country profiles provide information on patents, utility models, trademarks and industrial designs. They cover different dimensions of intellectual property (IP) activity, including incoming and outgoing filings, the share of filings in different technological fields, total patents in force, and the use of international IP systems by applicants.


text:
4/6/2016 Newsletter
Open Letter to Minneapolis City Council
Analysis of MPD Draft Body Camera Policy
4200 Cedar Ave, Suite 5
www.cuapb.org
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hodges:
Attached please find our analysis of the Minneapolis Police Department's draft body-worn camera policy.
The importance of the policy governing use of body-worn cameras cannot be overstated. This policy will determine whether these devices provide increased transparency and accountability or become yet another mechanism for surveillance of community members.
We have attended the recent community meetings in an attempt to provide input into the policy. However, it is not at all clear to us that input from the community will find its way into the final policy. It is our hope that you will take seriously the concerns of the community and use your oversight of the police to insist that the final policy reflect these concerns. Please do not delegate this important responsibility to MPD leadership which has, thus far, been tone deaf to recommendations from the PCOC and other community stakeholders.
For justice,
Michelle Gross, President
ANALYSIS OF MPD BODY WORN CAMERA DRAFT POLICY
The Minneapolis Police Department released their draft Body Worn Camera Policy on March 1, 2016, just two days after receiving funding to purchase these devices. While it is good that the community is finally able to see the policy, we are concerned that very little of the input gathered from the community through the Police Conduct Oversight Committee or directly submitted by Communities United Against Police Brutality, Color of Change, and other organizations was included in the policy.
Key Issue 1: Purpose of Body Worn Cameras
In promoting the purchase of body worn cameras, city officials and others cited the Rialto, California study showing a reduction in police misconduct complaints and claimed that a key purpose of these devices is to increase transparency and accountability. However, the draft policy makes it clear that these devices cannot fulfill this promise. The policy specifically states "The BWC equipment is not to be used for the purpose of surveillance of officers." In this context, the term surveillance refers to routine monitoring of police conduct, as the policy explains that any evidence of misconduct that is captured by the devices MAY only be used in relationship to a complaint or as part of a use of force review (which is only triggered if the officer completes a use of force report). Otherwise, there will be no periodic monitoring of the footage, making the device useless as an accountability tool. There must be periodic monitoring of the footage to ensure that policy is being followed. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) considers periodic monitoring a best practice and includes it in their model policy.
Key Issue 2: Activation and Deactivation
Provisions in the draft policy on activation and deactivation seem appropriate with two exceptions. In locations in which there is an expectation of privacy, the BWC should be deactivated on request, with only narrow exceptions (see Key Issue 3). Secondly, the draft policy states "Officers may [emphasis ours] activate the BWC in the following circumstances: General citizen contacts where the officer feels that a recording is appropriate." Body worn cameras should be activated during ALL encounters with members of the community, unless the individual is in a private area and requests the BWC to be deactivated.
Key Issue 3: Notification and Consent
The policy does not require consent or even notification that a recording is being made in a private residence or other location where people have the expectation of privacy. Instead, officers are encouraged to inform people that they are being recorded. We believe strongly that individuals should have right to decide if they want to have a camera recording them in private locations and should have the right to ask that the recording stop, except under very narrow circumstances.
Key Issue 4: Data Retention
The policy requires data to be retained for at least a year but under certain classifications for at least six years, the statute of limitations for most civil claims. This provision is appropriate and should be adopted in the final policy.
Key Issue 5: Data Release
There is little in the policy regarding data release, except for a reference to releases required for various law enforcement and litigation functions or under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. This isn't problematic per se as data release policies and procedures fall under the City Clerk's office. Nonetheless, there will need to be changes to the city's data practices policy and procedures and those changes have not yet been released for review by the public. We encourage adoption of the Internal Auditor's recommendations.
Key Issue 6: Use in Surveillance of First Amendment Protected Activities
The draft policy states, "The BWC shall not be activated for the purpose of surveillance of legally protected activities." This provision is appropriate and should be adopted in the final policy.
Key Issue 7: Review of Footage Prior to Writing Reports
The draft policy not only permits viewing of footage prior to writing police reports but encourages it by stating, "to ensure the accuracy of reports," officers "should review audio and video data before making a report or statement." This provision is highly problematic for a number of reasons. Police reports should reflect the probable cause and other information known to the officer at the time the officer made decisions related to stops, detentions, arrests or other encounters with community members. Further, both the police report and the BWC recording should have separate evidentiary value, which will no longer be possible if the police officer views the recording before completing the police report. Finally, this provision implies that police reports may not be accurate unless they are accompanied by BWC footage. Any lack of footage implies that the report lacks credibility—a position that is untenable for prosecutions and litigation. Sam Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, notes in an article "if an officer is planning to lie, video is a good guide to what kind of lie he can get away with."
Key Issue 8: Off Duty Use
The draft policy mandates use of BWC during off duty work. This provision is appropriate and should be adopted in the final policy.
Key Issue 9: Right of Public to Document Police Conduct
The draft policy has a slight reference to the First Amendment protected right to document police conduct, "The BWC shall not be used for the purpose of intimidating or discouraging an individual from observing police activity…" However, while the MPD now has a draft policy allowing them to film the community, they have no such policy protecting the right of the community to film the police. The US Department of Justice requires all police departments to have an explicit policy regarding the rights of people to film police.
Prepared 3/3/16

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl