More than 110,000 acres of Utah wilderness will be protected from oil and gas companies as a result of a ruling last night by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of the U.S. District Court. Judge Urbina granted a temporary restraining order that prevents the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from moving forward with these land leases. A coalition of environmental groups -- led by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Wilderness Society, and Earthjustice -- filed a lawsuit on December 17, 2008 to prevent the leasing of public lands.

"This ruling is a huge victory in protecting our nation's pristine wildernes from destruction due to oil and gas drilling," said Sharon Buccino, senior attorney for NRDC. "The case will now be heard in court, and we will do all we can to permanently protect Utah's wilderness."

Original post:

The Bush Administration's attempt to lease some of our most treasured lands for oil drilling was blocked today by a federal district.

District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina issued a temporary restraining order against the Department of Interior's efforts to lease land that NRDC Trustee Robert Redford calls "one of America's few remaining wildnerness places."

Citing Winter v Natural Resources Defense Council, Juge Urbina offered four reasons when a federal court can issue temporary restraining orders:

1. Likely success on the merits.
2. Likely irreparable harm in absence of preliminary relief.
3. The balance of equities "tips in his favor."
4. That an injunction is "in the public interest."

In the remainder of his five-page ruling, Judge Urbina discusses why NRDC and the other environmental groups who sued are likely to succeed on each of those points.

The ruling, as Sharon Buccino, the Director of NRDC's Lands Program, noted in an email is a "great win."

Stay tuned for continuing analysis and next steps in this remarkable last-gasp case against the Bush Administration's failed stewardship of our public lands.

Fortified by massive amounts of Advil and a hugely stubborn nature, I made it through six months until the middle of race seven -- the San Francisco Marathon -- when my stubby little legs said no more. For the first time, I stopped at the half way point and climbed onto the bus for a trip back to the start line. I was miserable amid the excited half marathoners who had just finished their races. In my mind, I had failed and sat on the bus close to tears for most of the ride.

It wasn't until months later that I accepted the idea that the goal wasn't realistic, that once again I had failed the balance test. I needed to find a balance between running marathons and healthy legs, just as I have always struggled to find balance in other areas of my life.

I'm not alone: balance is the most sought after and most elusive goal. It is sought in all areas of society but perhaps no more than in nature where balance is the fundamental operating principle for all life. Take away balance and the network of life starts to crumble.

That's the message of a new short video from NRDC (see below) that highlight the struggle to retain balance in the Rocky Mountains. In this case, the struggle pits gray wolves and those who admire them against ranchers and other political powerful forces that despise them.

The film opens with one of my personal heros -- Louisa Willcox -- noting that after the Bush Administration ignored all scientific advice and decided to remove the wolves from the endangered species list last summer, a wolf a day was being killed by hunters and ranchers.

NRDC and other environmental groups successfully fought to overturn the Bush Administration's action and thought that we had won this round. But in one of its lame duck efforts to impose its political will, the Administration is trying again and advocates of balance and the wild wolves have only until November 27th to make our voices heard.

Why does this matter? As Louisa explains, "wolves and elk and deer have co-evolved over thousands of years. There is a balance that they create and maintain. the wolf population can never get so big that all of the elk would be gone or else they too would be gone."

Louisa continues in the video (approximately half way through for those overeager beavers!) to layout the many other benefits of wolves for the Rockies. Her story and those of the other experts in our video is well worth watching.

And once you watch the video -- Restore The Balance: The Case for the Wolves in the Rockies -- I hope you'll go to the action alert on NRDC's affiliate website to add your voice for balance.

After a lifelong marathon (47 years and counting), I've come to appreciate perhaps more than anything else the need for balance. Let's not let a lame duck Administration succeed in its ham-handed attempt to ensure the destruction of gray wolves and the balance they bring in the Northern Rockies.

At that time, I had not ever given a thought to being a vegetarian. I loved hamburgers, hot dogs, bacon, chicken, turkey. And, yes, lobster, shrimp and most other seafood.

But I was stunned that afternoon to learn that lobsters big enough to eat were at least six years old. And many were much older. Somehow it didn't seem quite fair to take a critter that had lived so long on the planet and dump it living and breathing into a pot of boiling water. Giving up lobster soon led to other choices and now I'm a pretty hard core vegetarian. I'm not a vegan, but I won't eat anything that once had a face.

What sent me on this trip down memory lane was a front-page story in today's Washington Post about the death of lobsters in the Long Island Sound.

Over the past decade, the lobster boom here has gone almost completely bust. The die-off has been so severe -- a 70 to 90 percent drop since 1998, according to scientists and state estimates -- that hundreds of lobstermen have been forced out of business. Unable to make a living in waters once as rich as bisque with crustaceans, many have had no choice but to abandon a trade that amounted to more of a cherished lifestyle than a job.

What's killing the lobsters? According to the Post, some point to pesticides that were sprayed in Connecticut and New York to kill mosquitos in 1999. Others, however, point to global warming, a conclusion the Post says is "profoundly controversial on these shores."

One expert, Sylvain De Guise, director of Connecticut's Sea Grant program, told the Post that while a combination of factors has led to the die off, "it's very likely that the impact of warming waters would be seen here first. I'd have to say that global warming, based on common sense, is the strongest argument."

Another expert told the Post that the Sound has been warm before. Lance Stewart, a lobster expert at the University of Connecticut, said: "It's crazy to suggest this is somehow linked to global warming."

Sorry, Lance. I lean toward the common sense expressed by De Guise. Global warming is changing our planet in innumerable ways and, unfortunately, even after we start to deal with the carbon pollution that is poisoning our atmosphere, we're going to see more changes like the lobster die off. The question is how bad we're going to let it get before we take action.