William James Victor Garrison, a resident of Culpeper, Va., was today charged by federal grand jury with conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act and with making a false statement to a federal investigative agent during the course of an investigation. The indictment stems from Garrison’s participation in illegal elk hunting on the Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico during 2003. The conspiracy charge involving the Lacey Act, a federal wildlife enforcement statute, carries a maximum penalty of up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. The false statement charge carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The Valles Caldera National Preserve is an 8,900 acre property situated inside of a collapsed crater northwest of Santa Fe, N.M. The preserve is home to large populations of big game animals including elk, antelope and oryx. Strict regulations govern the hunting of these animals as they are prized among big game sportsman. The indictment alleges Garrison and members of his hunting party shot and killed bull elk, without permits, in violation of state law. At least one of these elk was then transported through interstate commerce in violation of the Lacey Act.

Federal authorities have already convicted six other hunters in Virginia and two additional hunters and guides in New Mexico related to this investigation.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

The investigation was led by Special Agents of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia, and the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. Related cases have been prosecuted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in both the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of New Mexico.

The highly charged debate on global warming reached the US Supreme Court Wednesday, prompting the justices to question the impact of auto and truck emissions on the environment, what must happen to rescue the world's coastlines, and whether the Environmental Protection Agency has to help stop the damage.

In the first case of its nature to reach the high court, the justices grilled both James R. Milkey, the top environmental lawyer in the Massachusetts attorney general's office, and Gregory G. Garre , the deputy solicitor general representing the Bush administration, on their views on global warming. The justices also probed the unsettled science of climate change and even weighed foreign policy considerations of the EPA setting limits on carbon dioxide pollution by new motor vehicles.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set the tone for the sharp-edged debate when he interrupted Milkey barely two minutes into the hearing.

"When is the predicted cataclysm?" Scalia asked.

Global warming hasn't reached a cataclysmic phase, Milkey answered, but is in a stage of "ongoing harm," referring to warming temperatures leading to rising sea levels and erosion along Massachusetts' 200 miles of coastline and shores worldwide. Failure to limit greenhouse gases, he said, was like lighting "a fuse to a bomb."

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has abandoned plans to decrease the frequency of reporting requirements for the release of toxic chemicals by polluting companies, it was announced Thursday. The changes would have required polluters to report every other year rather than the current mandate of annual submissions. The EPA also asserted, however, that it will push next year for an increase in the amount of pollutants that triggers the requirement for companies to report, essentially exempting about one-third of 23,000 companies from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting established in the 1986 Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Act.
Under existing standards, polluters must report any release over 500 pounds, while the proposed change would only require reporting after the release of 5,000 pounds. The EPA's move follows criticism from US Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who staunchly oppose the proposed changes. Lautenberg, who penned the Right to Know law, called the changes a "giveaway to corporate polluters at the cost of everyday Americans' health" and an "irresponsible policy stand."

The chemicals that must be reported under TRI requirements include DDT, mercury, PCBs and other chemicals that do not substantially dissipate. The lower TRI standard would exempt many companies in the mining, utility, oil, rubber, plastics, printing, textile, leather tanning and semiconductor industries.