"Eco-Terrorism On Orcas"

Eco-Terrorist Gabriel Thomas Mondragon cuts power on Orcas Island Washington. The dope tried to cut through a 69kV line wearing dishwasher gloves.

This story is from the Island Guardian newspaper: http://www.islandguardian.com/archives/00001878.html
Located in Friday Harbor, Washington. All credit goes to them for this story.

”I did it to punish the rich white people of Orcas Island and make them pay for the death of the whales and the depletion of the rain forests” -Mondragon

Gabriel Thomas Mondragon, 29 years old, who recently arrived from New Mexico, explained to Sheriff’s Deputies that in an attempt to make the people on Orcas “suffer just like the whales and trees”, he attempted to use a tree limbing saw -on a metal pole- to cut through a 69,000 volt power line.

According to the sheriff’s report, the man, identified as Gabriel Mondragon, also stated he wanted to protest “the death of Luna the whale and the destruction of the rain forest.”

Being well informed on the power of high voltage power lines, Mondragon cleverly put on several pair of latex dish washing gloves to isolate him from electrocution, and proceeded to touch saw to power line.

Mondragon was found laying on his back some distance from the line, his pants had been on fire, where they had burned away from his hips down. His gloves had partially melted, and he had “first, second and third degree burns’ on various parts of his body. He was, in short, lucky to be alive. He now has some medical and legal problems to deal with, including some interest in his actions by the FBI.

An OPALCO lineman who responded to the outage was on site at the substation within twenty minutes and called the sheriff’s office for an aid car. The sheriff’s office and fire department arrived with aid within ten minutes.

The substation is surrounded by a barbwire topped fence, so Mondragon first tried to reach the power line by standing on a ladder. When that failed to get him close enough to be electrocuted, he went over the fence, and was then was able to reach a power line.

Thousands of people on parts of Orcas and Shaw only experienced a temporary loss of electrical power as a result Mondragon’s action, while Mondragon was flow off to Harborview Hospital in Seattle via AirLift Northwest, for treatment of what are being called serious injuries..

The incident has been reported to the FBI, and Sheriff Bill Cumming said County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord will determine what, if any, charges may be pending, but at the least he may be charged with trespass. Gaylord said he would review the on-scene reports prior to making a determination of what appropriate charges may be.

OPALCO General Manager Randy Cornelius said he was required to notify the FBI of the incident, but that he had no information on any of the specifics of the case.

Cumming said because the crime involved a utility, the FBI has jurisdiction to enter the case. Given Mondragon’s statements, it seems likely he may also face additional charges related to “eco-terrorism”. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as “acts of violence in protest of harm to animals or to the environment, ” and it “is the United States' No.1 terrorism threat from inside its own borders.”

The County Council met this morning for their normal Monday morning work session, and Councilman Bob Myhr, who also is a siting board member of OPALCO, briefed the Council on the incident. Chairman Howard Rosenfeld said he was sure the OPALCO facilities are “not hardened against this type of thing, and never will be; so we need to stop alienating our own people.”

“This tragic incident underlines the importance of public education about the dangers of power lines and electrical safety, “ stated OPALCO General Manager, Randy Cornelius. “I’m proud of how quickly and efficiently our linemen and emergency services responded; I’m grateful for the professionalism of the law enforcement and fire service personnel who responded and took control of the scene—and am thankful that no lives were lost. Our thoughts are with the family of the young man that was injured.”

Power was restored to most of the island by 11:30 p.m. Some areas were without power until noon Sunday.

OPALCO is a member-owned cooperative electrical utility serving more than 10,000 islanders in San Juan County. OPALCO provides mostly renewable electricity that is 97% greenhouse-gas free and is predominately generated by hydro-electric plants.


This is so funny. This dope thought wearing some dishwasher gloves would save his ass when he was grounded to a metal pole. I have have some electrical gloves rated at 600 volts, they are pretty thick and cumbersome. A few layers of latex would not stand a chance.

The funniest thing of all was, he was cutting of power from a renewable resource.

By Any Other Name

In the August 22, 2005 edition of the New York Times, Jennifer Guyot wrote:

Victims of Eric R. Rudolph, the bomber who attacked the 1996 Olympics and two abortion clinics, said he seemed different at his sentencing today.

In contrast to the defiant terrorist who had declared himself "bloodied but emphatically unbowed," even as he agreed to plead guilty, Mr. Rudolph - who was sentenced to life in prison, as expected - was subdued and even apologetic.

Now compare that with what John Holusha wrote on the Times blog The Lede about yesterday's econut attack in Seattle where several houses under construction were burned down:

For people who are anti-sprawl activists — or have baser motives — a new-built house sitting empty in a previously rural area evidently makes a ripe target for an attack by fire.

[...]

Environmental activists were initially suspected in a rash of fires in southern Maryland in late 2004 that destroyed 12 houses and damaged a total of 40. The houses were part of a 300-house development that drew complaints from environmentalists, both local and national, because it would “destroy a forest adjacent to state-preserved wildlands and severely degrade one of Maryland’s largest magnolia bogs.”

So, according to the Times, if you bomb an abortion clinic, you're a "terrorist." Burn down a house to stop "urban sprawl," you're merely an "activist." The left-wing Seattle Slimes was also guilty of similar prevarication.

Check out some of the comments on the blog:

I find it hard to condemn these arsons - unchecked development and urban sprawl are not only an enviromental problem but they also constitue a safety issue (see the San Diego fires last year). As long as they don’t harm people but only gredy companies’ profit or assets, it seems to me that these actions are morally justifiable, even if illegal.

thank god…. at least someone in this country cares enough to take action.

perhaps its not the best way to act or show civil disobedience…. I agree with the comment about them ultimately doing the evil developers they’re trying to hurt nothing more than a financial favor that is relieving them of an economic burden/liability.

but…. i’m glad that not all americans are playing playstation, watching orpah, and eating themselves into a motorized wheelchair. its inspiring to know that there are still some Americans who actually care enough to take a direct action against something that is killing the environment.

mcmansions are the epitome of our nation’s narcissism and obsession with opulence.

I disagree with those who say this is an idiotic act. First of all, it has spurred a conversation between citizens of our country - and I see that a large percentage of those people commenting seem to be ambivalent about whether these acts are “terrorism”, which means this is a conversation we ought to have. I think acts such as these, which only harm empty buildings and their developers (who are insured) - and which do not harm people or animals - tend to make a larger point about where this society is heading and whether all of us wish to head there. To those who argue that this act created more environmental damage than leaving the homes alone, I would argue that the pollutants released in a fire like this amount to much less carbon emissions than those which are released when the homes are occupied, electricity turned on 365 days a year, SUV’s in the driveway and all the electronics turned on. I think in this day and age of the government monitoring us and renditioning us and holding us without charges, that it is quite interesting to see that there are people brave enough to risk being labelled “terrorist” in order to stand up for something they believe in and do something which is obviously more skin to vandalism than terrorism.

Scary.

P.S. - This housing development was initially opposed because, wait for it, of worries over the local aquifer.

P.P.S - Be sure to check out the editorial in today's Daily Watermelon that claims that "human society continues to commit atrocities against other sentient creatures" (i.e. cows.)

Mixed Econuts: The Moonbat Open

Even after appellant Scotty Cornelius stated "I can't say it's because of anything WSU did ... There's not enough data for me to draw any conclusion." and after being eviscerated by a Palouse hydrogeology expert from the University of Idaho who testified that the golf course will not be a threat to existing wells, the attorney for the aquinuts opposing the Palouse Ridge Golf Course at WSU "said she plans to take the case to the Washington Supreme Court regardless of the outcome of the hearing." Can someone please tell me where in the hell these people are getting the money for all these lawsuits and appeals?

From last Thursday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Expert: WSU wells not threat to nearby wells

Opponents will have opportunity to rebut testimony of UI professor

A local hydrogeologist said Wednesday the well system at Washington State University should not impair the wells of neighboring domestic properties.

James Osiensky, a professor at the University of Idaho, testified on behalf of WSU and the Washington State Department of Ecology during the second day of an appeal hearing over the state's decision to allow WSU to consolidate its water rights.

The first two days of the appeal to the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board took place at the Lighty Student Services building at WSU. Each side was given six hours to present testimony, and the board will render a verdict within 90 days after the hearing is complete.

That could be some time after a board decision allowing the group of appellants to provide rebuttal to Osiensky's testimony.

The appellants - the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius - claim the consolidation will allow the university to pump more than three times as much water per year as it currently does. They argue that the university has contributed to the dropping levels in the Grand Ronde aquifer, and point to an 18-hole golf course under construction as a project that will create more drawdown of the area's primary water source.

Cornelius, who lives outside Pullman, has said his well is decreasing at a rate of 10 inches per year.

WSU currently has the rights to operate seven wells, though two large wells pump a majority of the water needed on campus at 2,500 gallons per minute. Additional wells can be used in case of emergency.

Wednesday's testimony was dominated by expert witnesses who said measures were taken to ensure the university's consolidation would not decrease water availability on neighboring properties.

Osiensky said he has determined the drawdown of the Grand Ronde aquifer should not exceed two feet every 10 years through any combination of the university's seven wells pumping water. His research has shown that the aquifer will decrease 1.95 feet in 10 years if WSU continually pumps water. The aquifer will only decrease another half-inch in the same time frame with WSU operating its wells under the consolidation.

"Drawdown is a necessary evil," he said. "You can't get water without drawdown."

Rachael Paschal Osborn, the appellants' lead attorney, made a motion to strike Osiensky's testimony from the record. She said the respondents pulled a "bait and switch" by bringing in Osiensky when another expert witness could not take the stand due to a scheduling conflict. She added that the respondents did not disclose Osiensky's testimony and strayed from questions relevant to his deposition, which was taken last fall.

"We think allowing Dr. Osiensky's testimony is a violation " Osborne said. "They come in and it's trial by surprise."

Board members met in private to discuss the motion. Board Chairwoman Andrea McNamara Doyle said Osiensky's testimony does violate the respondent's duty to disclose, but instead of striking the testimony from the record she allowed the appellants to provide rebuttal to his testimony at a later date.

The board will have a conference call this afternoon with attorneys from both sides to set a time and place for closing arguments and the appellant's rebuttal to Osiensky's testimony.

The appellants agreed to proceed with the cross examination of Osiensky on Wednesday, questioning the equation he used to formulate the data from his testimony. They argued the method he used assumes the aquifer is not confined to an infinite area and is not isotropic or uniform in thickness, among other things - most of which do not pertain to the Grand Ronde.

Osiensky said there may be "some discrepancies" because the data used in his method was not spot-on regarding the Grand Ronde. He noted that the drawdown would be slightly more in some cases, although the "relative impact would stay the same."

Osiensky said the drawdown in Cornelius' well is a sum of drawdowns from all pump wells in the Pullman-Moscow area.

Guy Gregory, a senior hydrologist with the Department of Ecology in Spokane, testified that he did an analysis of wells that could be affected by the consolidation. He found no evidence that the change would impair the water rights of other wells.

"We know there's water in the area," he said.

Osborn said she plans to take the case to the Washington Supreme Court regardless of the outcome of the hearing.

She said the appeal in front of the board only addressed whether WSU was impairing the water rights of other residents in the region. It's on more-complex issues, such as the university allegedly "water hording" unused water rights and the interpretation of the municipal water law, that demand an appeal to a higher court.

"This isn't over," she said.

Mixed Econuts: No Growth Worms

I love this quote: "The giant Palouse earthworm and the Palouse habitats that it depends on are on the edge of extinction and will be lost forever if we don't act soon."

Is it any wonder people can't take the filthy, treehugging econuts seriously? Where is the science? We don't know where the giant Palouse earthworm's habitat is. We don't know how many there even are. They could all already be dead or there could be millions. BUT WE MUST ACT NOW AND HALT ALL DIGGING OR THEY WILL BE GONE FOREVER!!!! Everyone can see that this is a embarrasingly transparent attempt by the dopey local hippies to halt growth on the Palouse.

From last Friday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Environmental group files suit to save earthworm

Group suing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over decision not to list the giant Palouse earthworm as endangered

The battle over the giant Palouse earthworm is heading to the courts after an environmental group filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over its October decision to deny protection for the worm under the Endangered Species Act.

The environmental group - which includes the Palouse Prairie Foundation, the Palouse Audubon Society, Friends of the Clearwater, the Center for Biological Diversity and three private citizens - sought protection for the earthworm in August, claiming that the threat of destruction and modification of habitat, disease and predation, the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and other natural and man-made factors make the earthworm a prime candidate for the Endangered Species List.

In its denial, the Fish and Wildlife Service indicated the group's petition did not contain enough information regarding the range, distribution and population size, and that data on the earthworm was too limited to add it to the endangered list. There also was not enough data to conclude the potential threats discussed in the petition posed a risk to the existence of the species now or in the future.

In a news release issued Thursday, Friends of the Clearwater board member Steve Paulson stated there may not be much time to waste if the earthworm is to be saved.

"The giant Palouse earthworm and the Palouse habitats that it depends on are on the edge of extinction and will be lost forever if we don't act soon," Paulson stated. "The earthworm needs the protection of the Endangered Species Act to survive."

The giant Palouse earthworm is the largest and longest-lived earthworm on the continent and can reach a length of three feet. It has a pinkish-white color and is reported to have a flowery smell. It lives in permanent burrows as deep as 15 feet and has been reported to spit at attackers.

The earthworm's only known habitat is the grassland of the Palouse in west-central Idaho and southeastern Washington, much of which has been destroyed by agricultural development, invasive species and pesticides.

The earthworm was described as very abundant in 1897, but has not been sighted since May 2005. Before that, it had not been sighted since 1988.

Mixed Econuts: Unfunded Mandates

Get ready to reach into your wallets to protect the non-existent Palouse River salmon. Dino Rossi needs to clean house at the Department of Ecology after he is elected. From last Wednesday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman accepts state money for stormwater work

Pullman City Councilman Keith Bloom doesn't mind being a rebel.

Bloom cast the lone opposing vote Tuesday as the council voted to accept $50,000 in state funding to help the city institute elements of statewide municipal stormwater permits issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology in February 2007.

The permits have been viewed locally as a heavy-handed way to manage runoff from development and control stormwater discharges into sewer systems, with a goal of reducing pollution and contamination of downstream waters. Permits also require municipalities to manage construction stormwater, detect and eliminate illegal discharges, create good housekeeping practices for existing systems and educate the public.

The council and city staff have protested the permits because of the city's unique topography and because Pullman already has many protective measures in place.

The cost to implement the five-year permit is expected to exceed $4 million. The city was given a $75,000 grant from the state in 2007, and the council has discussed creating a stormwater utility district to help pay for the permit costs.

The city is appealing the permits along with several other members of the Washington Association of Cities.

Bloom said his opposing vote was meant to be symbolic.

"A vote 'yes' means we begin the process to raise taxes. It's blood money," he said. "It's giving us $50,000 so we can turn around and pay them $500,000 (in fees). ... I'm not going to march lock step with the DOE on this."

Public Works Director Mark Workman said the money likely will be spent to organize a fee schedule for the proposed utility district. Representatives from the city's stormwater consultant, Otak, Inc., soon will begin to evaluate the impervious surfaces on about 200 residential properties throughout Pullman. The numbers will be averaged and used to generate an Equivalent Residential Unit - a fee structure for the stormwater utility customers. Fees for industrial and commercial businesses will be tabulated individually.

The council also voted in favor of upping the city's contribution to appeal the permit to $33,333.33.

Pullman joined forces with 32 other Washington cities last year to appeal the permit, arguing it is too restrictive and goes beyond what is required by the Clean Water Act and the Ecology Construction Stormwater Permit. The city originally pledged to chip in $8,333.33 for the appeal.

Workman said the increased amount is needed for the cities to battle a cross-appeal filed by the Puget Sound Alliance, which claims the stormwater permits are not restrictive enough.