text:
Original Hockey Hall of Fame

The Original Hockey Hall of Fame, formerly the International Hockey Hall of Fame (IHHOF) is a museum dedicated to the history of ice hockey in Canada, located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The IHHOF was intended to be the original Hall of Fame for hockey, but events led to the establishment of the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, Ontario instead. A dedicated building was opened in 1965, and eventually also hosted exhibits for the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) from 1992 to 1997, prior to the establishment of the IIHF Hall of Fame. The IHHOF was renamed the Original Hockey Hall of Fame in 2013, and now focuses on the history of the sport, and emphasis on the role people from Kingston had in its development.

History
The International Hockey Hall of Fame was founded on September 10, 1943, and incorporated as a non-profit charitable organization by the National Hockey League and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association (CAHA). It was established through the efforts of James T. Sutherland, a former president of the CAHA and the Ontario Hockey Association, who sought to establish it in Kingston because he believed that the city was the birthplace of ice hockey. In 1943, the NHL and CAHA reached an agreement that a Hall of Fame would be established in Kingston. On April 17, 1945, the CAHA arranged to give 25 per cent of its annual proceeds towards building a facility for the IHHOF. CAHA secretary George Dudley expected that amount to be $4,000 to $5,000. The first players were inducted on April 30, 1945, although the IHHOF still did not have a permanent home.

Kingston lost its most influential advocate as permanent site of the Hockey Hall of Fame when Sutherland died in 1955. By 1958, the IHHOF organizers had still not raised sufficient funds to construct a permanent building in Kingston. Clarence Campbell, then President of the NHL, grew tired of waiting for the construction to begin and withdrew the NHL's support, subsequently reaching an agreement with the Canadian National Exhibition to establish a new Hall of Fame building in Toronto. CAHA president Jack Roxburgh felt that there was no place for two halls of fame in Canada, and stated it was a "tragedy nothing was done" while Sutherland was alive. The CAHA formally withdrew its support of Kingston in January 1962, in favour of Toronto.

Despite this major setback, the Board of Directors of the International Hockey Hall of Fame moved forward. In 1962, a grant was awarded by the City of Kingston for the construction of a new building. In 1965 the International Hockey Hall of Fame moved into their new building adjacent to the Kingston Memorial Centre.

In 1991, The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) reached an agreement with the city of Kingston, Ontario, and the IHHOF to loan its exhibits to the museum for a five-year period from 1992 to 1997, while a more permanent display was being planned. Kingston City Council provided a CA$100,000 line of credit towards building a true international ice hockey museum. The partnership ended in 1997, when the IIHF withdrew. The IIHF cited the lack of progress made towards getting a new facility constructed in downtown Kingston, as the primary reason for terminating the agreement.

The hall is now located at the Invista Centre, and reopened in spring 2016, with new exhibits and multimedia presentations, including a film, The Cradle of Hockey, narrated by Don Cherry.

Exhibits
The museum had two floors at their original home at 277 York Street. The first had exhibits about Bobby Orr, Don Cherry, the Original Six, Wayne Gretzky and others. The second floor had a display of the Hall of Fame's inductees, plus exhibits about Kingston and area professional hockey players, the World Hockey Association, and the evolution of ice skates and hockey sticks. Artifacts included jerseys worn by Gordie Howe, Rocket Richard and others, skates and sticks from the 1800s and the championship banner of the 1914 Toronto Blueshirts. Outside of the building was an oversized square puck.

Inductees
The Hockey Hall of Fame inducted nine builders and 33 players, but only two since 1952 and none since 1966. The inducted members were all included as inductees to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Historic Hockey Series
Each February since 1969, the Hall of Fame presents its annual Historic Hockey Series. The series is both a competition and demonstration of the first organized hockey game played on the Kingston Harbour in 1886 between Queen's University and the Royal Military College of Canada. The original style hockey stick and uniforms, as well as the original rules of that era, are used including a square hockey puck, seven players per side and with no forward passing. Queen's University and the Royal Military College of Canada compete along with the 2nd Regiment from the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery from Petawawa who represent the garrison soldiers stationed in Kingston in the 1880s in a round-robin tournament. Since 2006, the series has been held on the outdoor rink at Kingston's downtown Market Square.

Notable curators

 * Bill Fitsell (1923–2020), Canadian sports journalist and historian

title: Original Hockey Hall of Fame


text:
Hauser

Hauser is a German-language surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Arnold George Hauser (1888–1966), American baseball player
 * Arnold Hauser (art historian) (1892–1978), Hungarian art historian
 * Bodo Hauser (1946–2004), German journalist and writer
 * Cole Hauser (born 1975), American actor
 * Dwight Hauser (1911–1969), screenwriter, actor, and producer; father of Wings
 * Eduard Hauser (cross-country skier) (b. 1948), Swiss cross-country skier
 * Eduard Hauser (general) (1895–1961), Generalleutnant in the Wehrmacht during World War II
 * Emily Hauser (born 1987 or 1988), British classicist and novelist
 * Erich Hauser (1930–2004), German sculptor
 * Friedrich Hauser (1859–1917), German classical archaeologist and art historian
 * Gayelord Hauser (1895–1984), German-American nutritionist and author
 * Henri Hauser (1866–1946), Algerian-born French historian
 * Hermann Hauser (born 1948), Austrian entrepreneur and cofounder of Acorn Computers
 * Hermann Hauser Sr. (1882–1952), German luthier
 * Joey Hauser (born 1999), American basketball player
 * Julius Hauser (1854–1920), NYS Treasurer 1907-1908
 * Kaspar Hauser (1812–1833), German foundling
 * Lisa Theresa Hauser (born 1993), Austrian biathlete
 * Marc Hauser (born 1959), American ethologist found guilty of scientific misconduct
 * Otto Hauser (1874–1932), Swiss pre-historian
 * Paul Walter Hauser (born 1986), American actor
 * Philip Hauser, demographer
 * Sam Hauser (born 1997), American basketball player; brother of Joey
 * Samuel Thomas Hauser (1833–1914), American politician from Montana
 * Stjepan Hauser (born 1986), Croatian cellist
 * Tim Hauser (1941–2014), singer and co-founder of vocal group The Manhattan Transfer
 * Walter Hauser (1837–1902), Swiss politician
 * Wings Hauser (born 1947), American actor, director, and screenwriter
 * Zvi Hauser, Israeli politician

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Hauser


text:
Waurn Ponds, Victoria

Waurn Ponds is a mainly residential southern suburb of Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

The suburb is bounded by Rossack Drive, Princes Highway, the Geelong to Warrnambool railway, Reservoir Road, Draytons Road, Pigdons Road, Deakin University and Honeys Road. It is home to the main Geelong campus of Deakin University and the regional Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre. There are many schools around Waurn Ponds like Mount Duneed Regional Primary School.

History
The town was named after the Waurn chain of ponds, a watercourse that flows from Mount Moriac over 30 km into the Barwon River.

'Waurn' meaning "place of many houses" in reference to aboriginal stone houses in the Wathaurong language, though there is no evidence of this outside of Mr Pascoes book.

It is thought that the name derives from an Aboriginal word meaning camp, although another authority states that the original name was Warren's Chain of Ponds.

Two early hotels – the Victoria Inn (1845–60) and the Waurn Ponds Inn (1856) were located on the Princes Highway serving travellers on the road. The Albert and Victoria vineyards, owned by David Pettavel, began growing grapes in 1848 and the area was better known as Pettavel in the 1860s. The Pettavel Post Office opened on 12 January 1865 and remained open until 1952. The Waurn Ponds Post Office opened on 1 December 1871 and closed in 1968.

A quarry for limestone was opened in the 1840s, with quarrying continuing from 1964 to today at the nearby Blue Circle Southern cement works. Kilns for making mortar lime operated until the 1970s.

Waurn Ponds Memorial Reserve
The Waurn Ponds Memorial Reserve (Formally Waurn Ponds Aveneu of Honour) is located on the Corner of Cochranes Road and Waurn Ponds Drive, Waurn Ponds. The Aveneu of Honour was planted in July 1919, by the residents of Waurn Ponds as a tribute to the Waurn Ponds World War One Servicemen.

In 1999, the Victorian State Government decided to sell the Avenue of Honour. Local residents and the Victorian RSL President Bruce Ruxton campaigned that the Aveneu of Honour would not be auctioned and that the site be protected. The Victorian State Government overturned the sale of the Waurn Ponds Memorial Reserve and a Committee of Management was appointed with Mr Jack Harriott been the Chair.

A re dedication service was held with a plaque listing the Waurn Ponds W.W.1 Servicemen unveiled. In 2000, another two plaques were added with additional Waurn Ponds Servicemen who served in World War One and another plaque honouring the Waurn Ponds Servicemen and Servicewomen who served in the Second World War.

Today there are plaques acknowledging those that served in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Royal Australian Air Force Nurses and Servicewomen from the Geelong area. The Memorial Reserve is also home to the 3.7 Anti Aircraft Gun which is on display at the Reserve. An annual memorial service is held on the first Sunday of July to mark the anniversary of the Waurn Ponds Memorial Reserve.

Waurn Ponds Hall
The Waurn Ponds Hall which is located on 225 Waurn Ponds Drive was erected in 1924 as mechanics institute and free library. The Hall is now used for many local events and can be hired for private functions. The back of the Waurn Ponds Hall was the original Waurn Ponds State School which was relocated to Grovedale Primary School and later back to the Waurn Ponds Hall as an extension.

Waurn Ponds started to become part of the outer suburbs of Geelong from the 1970s, with the opening of the Deakin University campus and the Waurn Ponds Hotel on the highway. Major development did not begin until the early 1990s, based around Ghazeepore Road. The intervening years have seen housing developments spread across the hillside towards Grovedale.

Heritage listed sites
Waurn Ponds contains a number of heritage listed sites, including:

 * Princes Highway and 110 Lemins Road, Lime Burning Kiln
 * Princes Highway, Waurn Ponds Creek Bridge

Geography

Waurn Ponds is home to the quite small Waurn Ponds Creek. It starts around the Mount Moriac region and eventually flows into the Barwon River near Belmont Common.

As of 2007, it is low on water and is no more than one metre deep in most sections. It has a large weed problem which makes the creek look uninhabitable. The creek is home to species of fish (many introduced) including Carp, Redfin, Roach, Tench, Australian Grayling and short finned eels. The creek also is a large habitat of native birds including the pacific black duck. Increase in annual rain will bring the creek back to its original status.

Community groups
The Friends of the Waurn Ponds Creek is a community group that gather on the first and third Sunday of the month to protect and conserve the health of the Waurn Ponds Creek and surrounding area. The Friends first started in 2002 and have won awards for their dedication and work towards enhancing the creek to protect the native fish and wildlife that habitat are along the creek. The Friends plant trees, clean up rubbish and maintain weeds and tree planting sites.

Waurn Ponds has a large linear parkland following the creek. The neighbouring suburb of Grovedale has a skate park and baseball complex.

Waurn Ponds has a Hall, Tennis Club, Cricket Club and Memorial Reserve to the west of Waurn Ponds.

The Waurn Ponds Tennis Club located on 20 Belperroud Road off Waurn Ponds Drive, is a successful tennis club which has junior and senior competitions in the Tennis Geelong Competition.

The Waurn Ponds Cricket Club located on Waurn Ponds Drive, access from Deskin University was established in 1986 and currently has senior men's team and junior sides. The Club is in the Geelong Cricket Association.

The boundaries of Waurn Ponds were expanded in 2012 when, as a result of boundary changes related to the development of the nearby Armstrong Creek Growth Area, an area of land in the west of the current suburb between the Princes Highway and the Geelong-Warrnambool railway line was shifted from the locality of Mount Duneed to Waurn Ponds.

Transport
Waurn Ponds is located on the Princes Highway that links the suburb with the centre of Geelong. It is also the southern endpoint of the Geelong Ring Road, completed in 2009. Anglesea Road heads south through the suburb, linking the area to Torquay and Anglesea. Pioneer Road links the region west to Grovedale, the road not being completed eastward across the Waurn Ponds Creek until the mid-1990s.

Public transport to the area is provided by buses operated by CDC Geelong and McHarry's Buslines, under contract to Public Transport Victoria. Routes to the Geelong city centre originate and terminate at Deakin University.
 * Route 1 – Deakin University to North Shore and return, via Grovedale, Belmont, South Geelong railway station, Geelong, Geelong West and North Geelong – runs every 20 minutes on weekdays and every 30 minutes on weekends. There is a train station running from Melbourne to Warnambol and waurn ponds is one of the stops
 * Route 40 – Deakin University to Geelong railway station and return, via Grovedale, Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre, Marshall railway station, Breakwater and East Geelong – runs hourly on weekdays but does not run on weekends.
 * Route 41 – Deakin University to Geelong railway station and return, via Waurn Ponds railway station, Grovedale, Waurn Ponds Plaza, Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre, Belmont and South Geelong – runs every 30 minutes on weekdays and hourly on weekends.
 * Route 42 – Deakin University to Geelong railway station and return, via Waurn Ponds railway station, Grovedale, Waurn Pond Shopping Centre, Highton, Belmont and South Geelong – runs every 20 minutes on weekdays and hourly on weekends.
 * Route 43 – Deakin University to Geelong Railway station and return, via Highton and Newtown – runs every 40 minutes on weekdays and hourly on weekends.

The Geelong V/Line rail service, to and from Geelong and Melbourne, was extended to the new Waurn Ponds railway station, situated in Sugargum Drive, in 2014. The new station was named Grovedale in the planning stages, despite being physically located in Waurn Ponds, but the official name of Waurn Ponds was announced in July 2014.

An earlier extension of Geelong line rail services in the direction of Waurn Ponds had been considered when funding was set aside for a new station beyond South Geelong station in 2003–04, but that eventually resulted in the new station being built at Marshall, closer to Geelong, instead.

University

The Deakin University campus at Waurn Ponds had the beginnings in the Gordon Institute of TAFE, who purchased land there in 1969. A building for the Applied Sciences was first built, followed by a library and student lodgings in 1975. In 1976 the Gordon Institute was divided into two parts, with academic courses becoming part of the newly formed Deakin University based at the Waurn Ponds campus.

Deakin enrolled its first students at its Waurn Ponds campus in 1977. Today the university is located on a 365 hectare site, has over 1,000 staff and over 4000 on-campus students.

Deakin offers many social groups for students to join, The main Association is DUSA, followed closely by the Deakin Students' Commerce Society Deakin University Student Association

Retail
The Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre, located on the corner of Colac Road (Princes Highway) and Pioneer Road, is a regional-level shopping centre servicing the southern suburbs of Geelong and the surrounding region. It was opened in the early 1990s, and has been continually expanded. The most recent expansion was completed in August 2014, and increased the total area of the centre to 47,000 square metres. There are over 160 different shops.

The Geelong Homemaker Centre, located on the Colac Road (Princes Highway) at the intersection and Pigdons Road, opened in mid-2005. It includes Bunnings Warehouse and Harvey Norman stores, as well as a number of smaller stores, such as Supercheap Auto, Beacon Lighting, Snooze, Ray's Outdoors and, most recently, JB-Hi-Fi.

Waurn Ponds Plaza, located at the intersection of Rossack Drive and the Colac Road (Princes Highway), is another shopping centre in Waurn Ponds. It is the location of the office of the federal member for Corangamite, Libby Coker.

title: Waurn Ponds, Victoria


text:
Talk:Berserker probe

I'm thinking that rather than cleanup, this article might be best served by merging it back into von Neumann probe as a subsection of that article. There's a great deal of duplication between the two. Bryan 01:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not completely opposed to that, as the bersker probe is type of Von Neumann probe. I just felt that a discreet entry would do the topic more justice. George 23:45, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)

The Galaxy
It has been speculated that the entire galaxy could be sterilized in this way in as little as half a million years. ... the galaxy? --Abdull 14:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The Milky Way, presumably, just like when people say "the sun" to mean our Sun. :) I'll fix it. Bryan 15:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Berserker probe


text:
User:Gtrmp/Todo

Pending VfD of tir'su, merge other D&D articles:
 * god-isle into Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)
 * tir'su and Vlaakith into githyanki
 * Forerunner (Dungeons & Dragons) and Pharagos into Gith

Disambiguation of names (some to flag up at WP:RM):
 * various band (eg list of heavy metal bands)
 * various video games (eg list of Atari 2600 games)
 * Bury should point to Burial

title: User:Gtrmp/Todo


text: User talk:81.179.243.74

title: User talk:81.179.243.74


text: User talk:216.58.19.59

title: User talk:216.58.19.59


text: User talk:62.101.126.222

title: User talk:62.101.126.222


text: User talk:67.173.158.74

title: User talk:67.173.158.74


text:
Resource Management Act 1991

The Resource Management Act (RMA) passed in 1991 in New Zealand is a significant, and at times, controversial Act of Parliament. The RMA promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical resources such as land, air and water. New Zealand's Ministry for the Environment describes the RMA as New Zealand's principal legislation for environmental management.

The RMA and the decisions made under it by district and regional councils and in courts affect both individuals and businesses in large numbers, and often in very tangible ways. The Act has variously been attacked for being ineffective in managing adverse environmental effects, or overly time-consuming and expensive and concerned with bureaucratic restrictions on legitimate economic activities.

The Sixth Labour Government replaced the RMA with two separate acts: the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 (NBA), and the Spatial Planning Act 2023 (SPA);  and planned to add the Climate Change Adaptation Bill (CAA). Following the 2023 New Zealand general election, the National-led coalition government repealed Labour's NBA and SPA legislation. It also promised to reform the RMA and eventually replace it with new resource management laws.

Significance
The adoption of the RMA was significant for three reasons. Firstly, the RMA established one integrated framework that replaced the many previous resource-use regimes, which had been fragmented between agencies and sectors, such as land use, forestry, pollution, traffic, zoning, water and air.

Secondly, the RMA was the first statutory planning regime to incorporate the principle of sustainability.

Thirdly, the RMA incorporated 'sustainable management', as an explicitly stated purpose placed at the heart of the regulatory framework and this purpose is to direct all other policies, standards, plans and decision-making under the RMA. Having the purpose of the RMA at the apex of an unambiguous legislative hierarchy was a unique concept worldwide at the time of the law's inception.

Related legislations
The RMA replaced a large number of acts, regulations and orders. A total of 59 Acts and amended Acts were repealed (see RMA Sixth Schedule), and nineteen regulations and orders were revoked (Seventh Schedule). The notable acts repealed were the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1977. The mining and minerals regime was separated from the Resource Management Bill at the third reading stage and was enacted as the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

However, three of these statutes, provided important elements of the RMA. The Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 provided the precedent for catchment-based entities and catchment boards became part of the new regional councils. The Town and Country Planning Act 1977 provided the consenting and planning procedures. The Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 provided the consenting regime and case law for water.

Beginnings
Following the National Party's antipathy to environmental issues in the 1980s, as expressed in the Think Big economic development projects and the National Development Act, the New Zealand Labour Party went into the 1984 election campaign with a platform of reforming planning and local government institutions and adopting better environmental policies. The reform policy involved creating an integrated resource decision making system to replace the existing sectoral based system. The Labour Party environment policy, such as this quote from Part I, paragraph 3, owed much to the Brundtland Commission's concept of sustainable development; "to ensure the management of the human use of the biosphere to yield the greatest sustainable benefits to present generations while maintaining the potential to meet the goods and aspirations of future generations"

Resource Management Law Reform
In the 1987 election the fourth Labour Government won a second term in office and deputy prime minister Geoffrey Palmer became the Minister for the Environment. Palmer initiated a comprehensive reform project for New Zealand's environmental and planning laws. This was the Resource Management Law Reform or RMLR. Palmer's objectives explicitly included giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi, cost-effective use of resources, the World Conservation Strategy, intergenerational equity, and intrinsic values of ecosystems. Palmer chaired a Cabinet committee supervising a core group of four people supported by the Ministry for the Environment. The core group developed policy through a series of 32 working papers and through extensive public consultation. In December 1988, the reform proposals were published. In December 1989, Palmer introduced the 314-page Resource Management Bill to the Parliament of New Zealand. The Select Committee process was not completed by the election of 1990, which Labour lost. However, the new National Minister for the Environment, Simon Upton, continued the law reform process leading to the enactment of the RMA.

Final drafting of the RMA
The new Minister, Simon Upton, noted the divergent views of submitters on the proposed purpose and principles of the Bill. A Cabinet paper of 10 March 1989 argued that the overall objectives and the broad philosophy of the Bill should be stated in a purpose section and clarified in a section on fundamental principles. After the 1990 election, Simon Upton appointed a Review Group to assess the purpose and principle clauses. The group consisted of: Tony Randerson, a lawyer, as chair; Prue Crosson (now Prue Kapua), a lawyer; environmentalist Guy Salmon; planner Ken Tremaine; and Brent Wheeler, an economist.

The Review Group considered that the clauses had become a conflicting 'shopping list' of matters advanced by interest groups, with no clear priority. That would result in the 'trading off' or balancing of socio-economic and biophysical aspects. They rejected such a balancing approach in favour of use within biophysical constraints. They considered that the Bill should not have a purpose of sustainable development with a focus on social justice and wealth redistribution. They concluded that purpose of the Bill should be 'sustainable management' and that the critical aspect of that purpose should be intergenerational equity, that is, safeguarding natural resource options for future generations. A second purpose of avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects of activities was added. The purpose and principles sections were consequently rewritten.

Finally, with the approval of Cabinet, Simon Upton added the third 'sustainable management' purpose of 'safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems'.

Simon Upton stated in his third reading speech to Parliament that the purpose of the RMA was not concerned with planning and controlling economic activity, nor about trade-offs, but about sustaining, safeguarding, avoiding, remedying, and mitigating the adverse effects of the use of natural resources. "The Bill provides us with a framework to establish objectives with a biophysical bottom line that must not be compromised. Provided that those objectives are met, what people get up to is their affair. As such, the Bill provides a more liberal regime for developers. On the other hand, activities will have to be compatible with hard environmental standards and society will set those standards. Clause 4 sets out the biophysical bottom line. Clauses 5 and 6 set out further specific matters that expand on the issues. The Bill has a clear and rigorous procedure for the setting of environmental standards – and the debate will be concentrating on just where we set those standards."

Part 2 Purpose and Principles
The result of Upton's input was that RMA was enacted with a Part 2 consisting of three 'principles' (sections 6,7 & 8) in an unambiguous hierarchy below the overarching purpose of 'sustainable management', set out in section 5. Under that section, the RMA has one specifically defined purpose; to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Definition of sustainable management
The RMA, in Section 5, describes "sustainable management" as managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while-

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystem; and

(c) Avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Principles
Section 6 is a list of matters of national importance that shall be 'recognised and provided for' in achieving the purpose of the RMA;

 * natural character of the coastal environment:
 * outstanding natural features and landscapes:
 * significant indigenous habitats and vegetation:
 * public access to waterbodies:
 * Māori culture, traditions, ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and taonga:
 * historic heritage:
 * recognised customary activities.

Section 7 is a list of matters that all decisions 'shall have particular regard to' in achieving the purpose of the RMA;

 * Kaitiakitanga:
 * stewardship:
 * efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
 * efficiency of the end use of energy:
 * amenity values:
 * intrinsic values of ecosystems:
 * quality of the environment:
 * finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:
 * habitat of trout and salmon:
 * climate change:
 * renewable energy.

Section 8 has the title "Treaty of Waitangi" and states that in achieving the purpose of the RMA, 'account shall be taken' of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Designations
Designations protect areas planned for future public works. Requiring authorities give notice of requirement for a designation to be included in a district plan to protect routes for roads, railways and other infrastructure.

Interpretation
Under the RMA virtually all significant uses of land, air, coastal, or water-related resources are regulated by provisions of the RMA or by rules in regional or district plans or by decisions on consent applications. Plans are to achieve the purpose of the RMA which is 'sustainable management' of natural and physical resources. Most rule-making and decision-making is expressly related back to the 'Purpose and Principles' section, Part II, which contains the statutory definition of 'sustainable management' in section 5. Consequently, the interpretation that is to be placed on the definition of 'sustainable management' will be of considerable importance.

Very soon after the enactment of the RMA, Fisher (1991) wrote a substantial legal analysis of the RMA showing that the definition of 'sustainable management' was possibly ambiguous. In spite of the 'biophysical bottom line' interpretation, as in Simon Upton's third reading speech, being perhaps the most grammatically correct, Fisher noted that a 'single integrated purpose' definition could be made where providing for human well being was equal with and not subordinate to the 'bottom line' paragraphs a) to c) of s 5(2).

Some six years after the enactment of the RMA, several decisions on consent applications had been appealed to the Environment Court where s5 was given some degree of interpretation. By 1997, two interpretations of s5 were recognised, 'balancing ' and the 'environmental bottom line'. However, the only common ground among the varying interpretations was the lack of consistence in the reasoning.

Harris (2004) states that the "broad overall judgement" is most commonly accepted interpretation of sustainable management.

Skelton and Memon (2002) reviewed the introduction of sustainable development into the RMA and the evolution of case law that had led to the "broad overall judgement" interpretation. They also criticised Simon Upton and the Ministry for the Environment for interpreting 'sustainable management' in section 5(2) of the RMA as a matter of biophysical environmental bottom lines. Skelton and Memon concluded that the "broad overall judgement" (a 'weighing', rather than a 'balancing' approach) is the interpretation of 'sustainable management' now favoured by the Environment Court.

The 'broad overall judgement' approach is not without critics. Wheen (1997, 2002) argues that the broad overall judgement interpretation reduces 'sustainable management' to a balancing test with a bias towards tangible economic benefits over the intangible environmental concerns.

Upton et al. (2002) responded to Skelton and Memon's paper by noting that the Review Group on the draft resource management bill had quite intentionally drafted section 5(2) to emphasise biophysical constraints to move away from the overly broad and unweighted list of socio-economic and environmental objectives in the Town and Country Planning Act. They concluded;"In our view, the plain wording of section 5 is easy enough to understand without recourse to concepts like sustainable development that are not referred to, or the insistence that an anthropogenic reading of the section must necessarily involve weighing up everything against everything else."

Resource consents
The RMA requires that certain uses of natural resources require a specific authorisation by a resource consent. As part of an application for resource consent, an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), a report similar to Planning Statement, is required. This assessment, in theory, includes all potential impacts on the environment, including those that are only long-term, with 'sustainability' as a strong, though not yet clearly legally defined part of the Act.

Climate change decisions
The RMA as originally enacted classified greenhouse gases as contaminants and it allowed consent authorities to consider the effects of global warming caused by discharges of greenhouse gases. In 1994, the Fourth National Government regarded the RMA as one of its policies to mitigate climate change. A number of decisions were made on that basis.

Stratford gas thermal power station
In 1993, the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ) proposed to build the Stratford Power Station, a 400-megawatt gas-fired thermal power station in Stratford, Taranaki. ECNZ applied for a resource consent to discharge contaminants including carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The Environment Minister Simon Upton established a board of inquiry under the Resource Management Act to hear and advise him on the proposal.

In February 1995, the board of inquiry Report of the Board of Inquiry, Proposed Taranaki Power Station – Air Discharge Effects (February 1995) concluded that the power station's operation would significantly increase New Zealand's emissions of carbon dioxide and make it more difficult for the Government to meet its obligation to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels as committed to under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The board of inquiry recommended that ECNZ must establish a carbon sink "sufficient to eventually store in perpetuity the equivalent quantity of carbon emitted from the site over the term of the permit".

In March 1995, Environment Minister Simon Upton in Decision of Hon Simon Upton, Minister for the Environment, Air Discharge Permit Taranaki Combined Cycle Power Station (Wellington, Ministry for the Environment, March 1995) accepted the bulk of the board's report and approved the resource consents. Upton made the conditions requiring carbon sequestration more flexible. The offsetting condition would only apply when electricity sector carbon dioxide emissions exceeded the volume emitted when the plant was commissioned. The offsetting condition allowed for either forests to create a carbon sink or greater efficiency elsewhere.

The decisions of the Minister and the board of inquiry set the precedent that under the RMA consent authorities can consider global warming to be a relevant effect and can impose conditions on companies that limit their discharges of greenhouse gases or require mitigation through offsetting or sequestration in forest sinks. The N.Z. Forestry periodical noted that planting forests to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions would be a temporary solution for about 40 years that did not take into account the emissions from the eventual harvesting stage. In 2001, Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs informed Parliament that ECNZ had never planted any forest for sequestration of the Stratford Power Station emissions.

Otahuhu C gas thermal power station
In 2001, Contact Energy obtained resource consents for a new 400 MW gas-fired power plant at the existing Otahuhu Power Station site. In 2002, the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) appealed the consents to the Environment Court. In the decision Environmental Defence Society (Incorporated) v Auckland Regional Council and Contact Energy', the Environment Court agreed that the predicted annual emissions of 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide would contribute to climate change via the greenhouse effect. The Environment Court agreed with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and concluded that the proposed CO2 emissions would be an "adverse effect of some consequence" under the RMA. However the court declined to grant the relief requested by EDS. That was to impose conditions requiring the complete offsetting of the carbon dioxide emissions by planting new forests. The court cited its concerns over its "efficacy, appropriateness and reasonableness" of the offsetting conditions.

Opinions
The Act has regularly made headlines since its introduction, receiving the blame for the failure of a number of high-profile projects, such as the Project Aqua hydro dam.

Proponents of the RMA argue that it ensures the sustainable use of resources for the foreseeable needs of the present and future generation, and also recognises the importance of indigenous rights in the mitigation process. In this respect, the RMA is a pioneering act in the area of sustainable development. Other advantages cited are the umbrella function, which (at least in theory) allows all consent decisions about a project to be considered in one process, freeing applicants from the need to research and apply for all the various permits they would otherwise have to apply for their development. It is also noted that the RMA is 'effects-based'. In other words, instead of a proposal needing to be on a list of approved or permitted developments or activities, if the applicant can prove that the 'effects' of the development on the environment are unproblematic, then he or she is allowed to go ahead. In practice however, this proof is often elusive, especially with new or contested activities or developments.

Environment and conservation groups
New Zealand's largest conservation organisation, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand considers that;
 * public participation is minimised as that 95% of all resource consents are granted without public notification,
 * less than 1% of applications for consents are declined (MfE 1999–2000 survey),
 * businesses equate public participation with added costs, but the OECD considers New Zealand to have low environmental compliance costs,
 * consenting is an uneven playing field, as developers have better access to legal, planning, scientific experts than the public,
 * the absence of national environmental standards and national policy statements has led to inconsistency between councils.

Business interests
Critics of the act argue that the resource management process is a barrier to investment, being unpredictable, expensive, protracted and often subject to undue influence from local lobby groups, especially the indigenous Māori iwi. A typical business viewpoint is expressed by the New Zealand Business Roundtable. "'The NZBR has long expressed concerns that are widely shared in the business community about the RMA. It is a cumbersome, time-consuming and costly piece of legislation that adds considerable uncertainty to business decision-making. It is a major impediment to the country's economic growth.'"

The Business Round Table has also argued that the RMA contains core concepts, such as sustainable management, intrinsic values, Treaty principles, kaitiakitanga and the definition of the environment, which are 'hopelessly fuzzy'.

Companies have used it to hinder the operations of their competitors, even though the law specifically states that business competition is not to be a factor in decisions about giving consent.

Other business critics argue that the RMA is destructive of property rights.

Also especially criticised was the inability to restrict submissions against a project to those directly affected, and the need to go through a Council-level hearings phase even when it was already apparent that a case would eventually go to the Environment Court.

The RMA has also been blamed for preventing Project Aqua, a major hydroelectric scheme, by making compliance, respectively the compliance process, too costly.

Māori
New Zealand's indigenous Māori have in return argued that decisions made under the RMA do not adequately take into account the interests and values of New Zealand's indigenous people.

2007 assessment of RMA's performance
Rod Oram's paper 'The RMA now and in the future', presented at the 2007 Beyond the RMA conference assessed the RMA's performance over its first 16 years. The paper's main conclusions were the following:
 * 'The effectiveness of the RMA is patchy. In rural areas it can cope with allocation and management of relatively abundant resources. But it cannot cope when resources, particularly water, are fully allocated. Nor can it cope with cumulative effects.... Under the RMA it is not easy for councils to declare a halt to further consents. And in urban areas, the RMA works well for small, local consents. But it is inadequate for dealing with wide area, long-term and strategic issues of urban development.'
 * 'The efficiency of the RMA has increased.... And there may be more gains to come from the 2005 amendments, which put in place mechanisms to upskill council staff and for councils to share knowledge. But some 20 councils were still considered to be under-performing.... And there are still complaints by consent applicants about variable quality of staff, decisions and timeliness. The continuing lack of national policy statements and environmental standards are widely considered detrimental to the Act's administration.'
 * 'The future of the RMA is highly uncertain. Almost all the development effort that has gone into it has focused on improving process rather than refining purpose. Thus, administration of the Act might have become more efficient but the legislation has failed to respond to greater pressures on the environment...or greater demands from the public for higher standards and more certain sustainability'.

2008 RMA reform
The National Party, when in opposition to the government, made a promise to reform the RMA during the 2008 election campaign. After winning the election a reform group was announced. They were given the following terms of reference:
 * raising New Zealand's rate of productivity and economic growth
 * increasing the flexibility of the economy to facilitate adjustment and promote confidence and investment in response to the international economic crisis
 * providing for sound environmental policies and practices.

In February 2009 the National-led Government announced the "Resource Management (Simplify and Streamline) Amendment Bill 2009" aimed at:

 * 1) Removing frivolous, vexatious and anti-competitive objections
 * 2) Streamlining processes for projects of national significance
 * 3) Creating an Environmental Protection Authority
 * 4) Improving plan development and plan change processes
 * 5) Improving resource consent processes
 * 6) Streamlining decision making
 * 7) Improving workability and compliance

Local Government New Zealand said in its submission to the local government and environment select committee that some of the changes designed to simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act were not well thought out and may actually create more delays and increase costs.

ECO considered that the Bill will hinder the input from communities and to favour large projects. It would also fast-track large developments and make little difference to smaller projects, a similar situation to the controversial National Development Act (repealed in 1986).

In 2013, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright criticised planned amendments to the Act, saying it "is not, and should not become, an economic development act".

Fast-tracking projects in COVID-19 recovery plan
As part of planning for economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Minister for the Environment announced on 3 May 2020 that the Government would amend the law to allow fast-tracking of selected projects through the RMA. The resource consent applications for the selected projects will be processed by an Expert Consenting Panel that is chaired by a current or retired Environmental Court Judge or senior lawyer. Each Panel will have a person nominated by the relevant local councils and a person nominated by the relevant iwi authorities. Consenting Panels will issue decisions within 25 working days after receiving comments on the application although this could be increased to 50 days for large scale projects. Existing Treaty of Waitangi settlements will be upheld, as will sustainable management and existing RMA national direction. Appeal rights will be limited to points of law and/or judicial review to the High Court, with one further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The announcement was welcomed by the industry body Infrastructure New Zealand. In a statement on 4 May, the Chief Executive said that “the RMA has become a litigious, cumbersome, and complex piece of legislation. It was never intended to be applied the way it has been, and it was not designed to facilitate recovery from something like the COVID-19 lockdown”.

The Chief Executive of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, responsible for national oversight of infrastructure planning and investment, called for wide-ranging improvements to environmental planning, including more focus on long-term needs, more integrated decision making and institutional reform.

Sixth Labour government, 2020–2023
In 2020 a comprehensive independent review of New Zealand's resource management system was undertaken. This report is named the 'Randerson report', after the Court of Appeal Judge, Hon Tony Randerson, who led the review. The review identified issues with the current system, and concluded that the system cannot cope with current pressures. These pressures include high population growth and the lack of accommodating development, diminishing biodiversity, the degradation of nature, and the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The report also made several recommendations. The primary of which was the repeal and replacement of the RMA.

On 10 February 2021, the Sixth Labour Government confirmed that the Resource Management Act will be replaced by three separate acts. This announcement follows many of the Randerson Report's recommendations. The three new acts will be the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 (NBA), the Spatial Planning Act 2023 (SPA), and the Climate Change Adaptation Bill (CAA). The acts are to be drafted, notified and implemented over the next three years.

In June 2021, the Government released an 'exposure draft' of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, to enable two rounds of public consultation.

In mid November 2022, the Government introduced the NBA and the SPA as part of its first steps to replace the Resource Management Act. The NBA establishes a National Planning Framework (NPF) setting out rules for land use and regional resource allocation. The NPF also replaces the Government's policy statements on water, air quality and other issues with an umbrella framework. Under the framework of the NPF, all 15 regions will be required to develop a Natural and Built Environment Plan (NBE) that will replace the 100 district and regional plans, harmonising consenting and planning rules. An independent national Māori entity will also be established to provide input into the NPF and ensure compliance with the Treaty of Waitangi's provisions. The Spatial Planning Bill will deal with long-term planning. Local committees will be required to develop 30-year regional spatial strategies (RSS). These strategies will be informed by the NPF and will help the regions decide their NBEs. In response, the opposition National and ACT parties criticised the two replacement bills on the grounds that it created more centralisation, bureaucracy, and did little to reform the problems associated with the RMA process. The Green Party expressed concerns about the perceived lack of environment protections in the two bills.

The Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Acts passed their third readings on 15 August 2023, and received royal assent on 23 August.

Sixth National Government, 2023–present
Following the 2023 New Zealand general election, the NBA and SPA laws were repealed by the National-led coalition government, which passed the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Act 2023 on 19 December 2023.

On 23 April 2024, the RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop announced that the Government's RMA replacement legislation would remove intensive winter grazing regulations, low-slope map from stock exclusion regulations, suspend the requirement for local councils to identify new Significant Natural Areas for three years, eliminate the requirement for resource consents to comply with the "Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations," and ease coal mining restrictions. The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was introduced on 23 May 2024.

title: Resource Management Act 1991


text:
Case Anton

Case Anton (Fall Anton) was the military occupation of France carried out by Germany and Italy in November 1942. It marked the end of the Vichy regime as a nominally-independent state and the disbanding of its army (the severely-limited Armistice Army), but it continued its existence as a puppet government in Occupied France. One of the last actions of the Vichy armed forces before their dissolution was the scuttling of the French fleet in Toulon to prevent it from falling into Axis hands.

Background
A German plan to occupy Vichy France had been drawn up in December 1940 under the codename of Operation Attila and soon came to be considered with Operation Camellia, the plan to occupy Corsica. Operation Anton updated the original Operation Attila, including different German units and adding Italian involvement.

For Adolf Hitler, the main rationale for permitting a nominally-independent France to exist was that it was, in the absence of German naval superiority, the only practical means to deny the use of the French colonies to the Allies. However, the Allied landings in French North Africa on 8 November 1942 caused that rationale to disappear, especially since it quickly became apparent that the Vichy government possessed neither the political will nor the practical means to prevent French colonial authorities from submitting to Allied occupation. Moreover, Hitler knew he could not risk an exposed flank on the French Mediterranean. After a final conversation with French Prime Minister Pierre Laval, Hitler gave orders for Corsica to be occupied on 11 November and Vichy France the following day.

Operation
By the evening of 10 November 1942, Axis forces had completed their preparations for Case Anton. The 1st Army advanced from the Atlantic coast, parallel to the Spanish border, while the 7th Army advanced from central France towards Vichy and Toulon, under the command of General Johannes Blaskowitz. The Italian 4th Army occupied the French Riviera and an Italian division landed on Corsica. By the evening of 11 November, German tanks had reached the Mediterranean coast.

The Germans had planned Operation Lila to capture intact the demobilised French fleet at Toulon. French naval commanders managed to delay the Germans by negotiation and subterfuge long enough to scuttle their ships on 27 November, before the Germans could seize them, preventing three battleships, seven cruisers, 28 destroyers and 20 submarines from falling into the hands of the Axis powers. Despite the disappointment of the German Naval War Staff, Hitler considered that the elimination of the French fleet sealed the success of Operation Anton since the destruction of the fleet denied it to Charles de Gaulle and the Free French Navy.

Vichy France offered no resistance, contenting itself with a radio broadcast objecting to the violation of the armistice of 1940. The German government countered that it was the French who violated the armistice first by not offering a determined resistance to the Allied landings in North Africa. The 50,000-strong Vichy French Army took defensive positions around Toulon, but when confronted by German demands to disband, it did so since it lacked the military capability to resist the Axis forces.

Aftermath
Although it became little more than a puppet government, the Vichy regime continued to exercise nominal civil authority over the whole of Metropolitan France except Alsace-Lorraine, as it had done since 1940. The Italian occupation zone was abolished following the removal of Mussolini from office and the Italian government's subsequent request for an armistice in 1943. France subsequently remained under exclusively German occupation from then until the Allied invasion and liberation of the country in 1944.

title: Case Anton


text:
Sikorsky S-40

The Sikorsky S-40 was an American amphibious flying boat built by Sikorsky in the early 1930s for Pan American Airways. During WW2 they were used by the United States Navy for training.

This was the first of flying clippers, large flying boats of the 1930s used for long distance air travel. More advanced designs soon followed, but the S-40 was big step forward as it could carry 38 passengers as opposed to the S-38's eight.

Design and development
Sikorsky designed the S-40 in response to a request from Juan Trippe, president of Pan American Airways, for a larger passenger-carrying airplane. The S-40 could carry 38 passengers, a significant increase over the S-38's eight passengers. Wind tunnel testing of the S-40 started in October 1928, and models of the hull were tested in April 1929. The aircraft featured a pantry with an electric refrigerator and stove as well as a smoking lounge with book-ended mahogany wood paneling. Six life rafts were carried.

Despite a significant size increase over the preceding S-38, the S-40 design was a conservative iteration of the smaller aircraft; the numerous flying wires and strut braces that were used in the exterior support framework caused significant drag and prompted Charles Lindbergh, retained as a consultant for Pan American, to tell Sikorsky "it would be like flying a forest through the air." Only three were built as Sikorsky began designing the more advanced and streamlined S-42 shortly after the S-40 entered service, based partly on input from Lindbergh. All three S-40s were built by the Vought-Sikorsky Aircraft Division of the United Aircraft in Stratford, Connecticut.

The first test flight occurred on August 6, 1931. The first aircraft was christened American Clipper by Lou Henry Hoover, wife of President Herbert Hoover, on October 12, 1931 at NAS Anacostia; after its christening, American Clipper flew around Washington, D.C.

In 1935, all three aircraft were upgraded and re-designated as the Sikorsky S-40A. Upgrades included replacing the original 575 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1860 Hornet B engines with smaller displacement but more powerful supercharged 660 hp R-1690 Hornet T2D1 engines, eliminating the landing gear, and increasing the maximum weight slightly. Another source states the landing gear was removed soon after the type certificate was issued.

Operational history
Passenger carrying service was initiated on November 19, 1931, with a S-40 piloted by Charles Lindbergh and Basil Rowe, flying from Miami, Florida to the Panama Canal Zone with stops at Cienfuegos, Cuba; Kingston, Jamaica, and Barranquilla, Colombia. Igor Sikorsky, the aircraft's designer, was on board as a passenger; during that trip, Sikorsky and Lindbergh began working on concepts that were used in the succeeding S-42.

The S-40 was Pan American's first large flying boat. American Clipper served as the flagship of Pan Am's clipper fleet and this aircraft model was the first to earn the popular designation of "Clipper" or "Pan Am Clipper". The three S-40s served without incident during their civilian lives, flying a total of over 10 million miles.

Navy Service
They were retired around 1940 and turned over to the US Navy during World War II, who used them as trainers for four-engined flight instruction. Under Navy service, the aircraft were designated Sikorsky RS-4. (see also Sikorsky RS) Two of the S-40 were pressed into Navy service, and called RS-4.

In July 1943, an RS-4 (752V) was coming in for beaching when it struck an unforeseen submerged rock, which damaged the wheel strut, which in turn caused list that lead a pontoon striking a rail at the edge of ramp. Beaching is when the flying boat is on the water, but brings its wheels down to come on to land, usually by a seaplane ramp. Another was damaged at Dinner Key in April 1943, and then returned to Pan-American by the Navy, however it was not returned to service but was used for spare parts.

title: Sikorsky S-40


text:
Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), commonly referred to as the Magnuson–Stevens Act (MSA), is the legislation providing for the management of marine fisheries in U.S. waters. Originally enacted in 1976 to assert control of foreign fisheries that were operating within 200 nautical miles off the U.S. coast, the legislation has since been amended, in 1996 and 2007, to better address the twin problems of overfishing and overcapacity (i.e., too much fishing power). These ecological and economic problems arose in the domestic fishing industry as it grew to fill the vacuum left by departing foreign fishing fleets.

Eight regional fishery management councils, composed of representatives of the fishing industry and state fishery officials, prepare fishery management plans for approval and implementation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a part of the Department of Commerce. The plans are amended frequently to adjust management policies and measures to changes in fish stock abundance and to meet the goals of the MSA as they are revised by the Congress. Acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, who is responsible for implementing the MSA's mandates, the NOAA administrator must determine whether a council's proposed plan amendment or adjustment meets the MSA's National Standards. These standards require that management measures actually prevent overfishing, are based on the best scientific information available, and are fair and equitable. If allocations of allowable catches are necessary to prevent overfishing or rebuild overfished stocks, such allocation schemes do not allow sectors of the industry to obtain an excessive share.

Background
The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in United States federal waters. The law is named after U.S. Senators Warren G. Magnuson of Washington state and Ted Stevens of Alaska, who sponsored the Senate bill, S. 200, that eventually was enacted.

The Magnuson–Stevens Act was originally enacted as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The U.S. House of Representatives bill, H.R. 200, was introduced by Representative Gerry Studds (D-Mass), who obtained bipartisan support for the bill from Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) through common concern over the fishing power of the foreign fleets operating off their respective coasts. Their goal was to extend the exclusive fisheries zone of the U.S. from 12 to 200 nautical miles from the coastline. Opposed by national security and foreign relations officials in the White House, the 94th United States Congress nevertheless enacted the bill, and it was signed into law by the 38th President of the United States Gerald Ford on April 13, 1976. The final version of the law, Public Law 94-265, extended fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles. It also created eight regional fishery management councils to assist the Secretary of Commerce in managing the fisheries of the United States. The role included advising the Secretary of State whether foreign fishing fleets could have access to fish stocks that U.S. fishermen did not have the capacity to harvest.

The United States fishery management law has been amended many times over the years. Two major recent sets of amendments to the law were the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, and then 10 years later the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. In short, the goal of these amendments was to require the regional councils and the Secretary of Commerce to identify overfished stocks and to rebuild them in as short a time as possible.

Purpose
The MSFCMA was enacted to promote the U.S. fishing industry's optimal exploitation of coastal fisheries by "consolidating control over territorial waters" and establishing eight regional councils to manage fish stocks. The act has been amended several times in response to continued overfishing of major stocks. The most recent version, authorized in 2007, includes seven purposes:
 * 1)   Acting to conserve fishery resources
 * 2)   Supporting enforcement of international fishing agreements
 * 3)   Promoting fishing in line with conservation principles
 * 4)   Providing for the implementation of fishery management plans (FMPs) which achieve optimal yield
 * 5)   Establishing Regional Fishery Management Councils to steward fishery resources through the  preparation, monitoring, and revising of plans which (A) enable stake holders to participate in the administration of fisheries and (B) consider social and economic needs of states.
 * 6)   Developing underutilized fisheries
 * 7)   Protecting essential fish habitats

Additionally, the law calls for reducing bycatch and establishing fishery information monitoring systems.

Regulatory mechanisms
Regional Fishery Management Councils are charged with developing and recommending fishery management plans, both to restore depleted stocks and manage healthy stocks. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) aids the Secretary of Commerce, who evaluates, approves, and implements the Councils' FMPs. Regional Fishery Management Council members are nominated by the governors of their respective states, and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

A FMP must specify the criteria which determine when a stock is overfished and the measures needed to rebuild it. Regional councils regulate fishers with mechanisms, including annual catch limits, individual catch limits, community development quotas, and others. The Marine Fish Conservation Network highlighted the most significant changes in the mechanisms utilized in a 2010 report:

"To achieve the goal of ending overfishing … Congress strengthened the role of science in the fishery management process and required fishery managers to establish science based annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for all US fisheries with a deadline of 2010 for all stocks subject to overfishing… The new fisheries law requires the councils' science advisors, the scientific and statistical committees to make recommendations for 'acceptable biological catch' (ABC) which managers may not exceed…"

The ACL is the centerpiece of the report which is supplemented by other mechanisms regulating the types of gear used, licensing vessels, and using of observers on fishing boats. In section 303 b, the Act enumerates the types of actions authorized for use by councils to achieve optimal catch goals. Including
 * 1)   Permitting vessels or operators
 * 2)   Designating Zones and periods where fishing is limited
 * 3)   Limiting sale, catch or transport of certain fish.
 * 4)   Regulating types of fishing equipment
 * 5)   Requiring observers onboard vessels

Regulatory effectiveness
The act's results vary for different regions and different fish stocks. It did not prevent the overfishing of many species throughout its first 20 years of existence. This prompted major amendments in 1996 and 2006. The National Marine Fisheries Service issued a report to Congress in 2010 on the status of U.S. fisheries. It reported that of the 192 stocks monitored for overfishing 38 stocks (20%) still have fish "mortality rates that exceed the overfishing threshold … and 42 stocks (22%) are overfished". This is down from 38% and 48% respectively in 2000. A 2003 NMFS report reviewed achievements of the act since 1996. Highlighting the inconsistent effects of the legislation, it revealed that overfishing was eliminated in 15 major fish stocks while overfishing was initiated in 12 major fish stocks. To improve their overfishing prevention programs, the NMFS has implemented the Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI), which measures key stocks according to their overfishing status and biomass levels. Since the FSSI began the index has increased every year.

The act also has impacts on financial matters. While taxpayers have paid over $3 billion on NMFS programs since the acts inception, ultimately the fishing industry is most affected by the act's design flaws and incomplete implementation. According to Zeke Grader, Jr., the executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, the largest active trade association of commercial fishermen on the west coast, "Most of the U.S. fisheries stocks are facing a disaster due to over capitalization of the fishing industry and the mismanagement practices of U.S. Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and their appointed regional fishery management councils". Chris Kellogg, chief technical officer for the New England Fishery Management Council, emphasizes the tenuous position of many fishers, "On average, my guess is the fishing harvesting industry here in New England is basically covering costs and just on the border of solvency and insolvency".

Stakeholders
Many interest groups are concerned with the forming of fisheries conservation legislation. Fishers, corporations, activist groups and the public all share interest in protecting fishing eco-systems and economies via the MSFCMA.

Fishers advocate measures that encourage regulatory processes to be scaled to the local level and which ensure fishing privileges aren't concentrated into small groups. They are also aware that if too much competition for finite resources prevails, their livelihood will suffer. Despite this, some fishermen prefer minimal government intervention in their market, defiantly demanding "the right to go broke".

The fishing industry is worth $4 billion annually, as of 2010. Fish harvesting and processing corporations are invested in the political process to maximize their profits, to protect against foreign competition and to prevent regulations from making their proprietary information available to the public. Candice May, of Colorado State University, argues that federal legislators can't forge these relationships largely because they haven't properly identified what a "fishing community" is. She highlights the successes of the Community Development Quota system employed in some Alaska fisheries.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focusing on fish conservation and environmentalism were key forces behind the incremental improvements in the law's regulatory mechanisms. The Pew Oceans Commission and the US commission on Oceans Policy prompted many of the amendments found within the 2006 reauthorization. Many advocacy groups speak through coalitions. The Marine Fish Conservation Network, for example, represents over 90 member organizations from across the United States.

The public is represented as a stake holder by elected representatives, who ostensibly take them into consideration when drafting ways to protect public resources such as fish stocks.

Critiques
The major criticisms of the act have been its failure to stem overfishing. This includes the failure of the Secretary of Commerce, acting through NOAA, to require regulations that minimize catches of non-target species (referred to as "bycatch") or to ban discarding at sea undersized or unwanted catches of target species, and to hold accountable regional councils that don't enforce or implement fisheries management plans. Additionally, some of the regional councils' policies, such as restarting the timeline for rebuilding overfished stocks, appear to critics to have shielded commercial fishermen from the consequences of their poor business decisions and thereby inadequately protected the marine ecosystems they depend upon. Additionally, the critics have contended that the management plans lack transparency requirements for fishery related data.

Limited federal enforcement and high levels of non-compliance with management regulations have contributed to stock depletion. Fishermen have accused each other of cheating on landings and chastised regulators for concentrating the quota allocations into too few hands. Other critics claim the regulatory framework is too "top-down" and alienates local fishers, thereby reducing the likelihood to achieve the cooperation needed to enforce many provisions.

In response to these criticisms, NOAA adopted a National Catch Share Policy, and encouraged regional management councils to allocate catch quotas to individual fishermen, groups of fishing companies operating through cooperatives, or fishing communities. "On May 1, 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implemented a new management system for ground fish in New England. It established 17 fishermen-run collectives, called sectors. Sectors were pioneered by fishermen as voluntary, cooperative and community-based, and were designed to protect fleet diversity and coastal communities. The new management system operates on three simple premises: As reported at the Council meeting, the first three months of sector operations resulted in (May 1 – August 15):
 * It implements science-based catch limits to rebuild fish populations and prevent overfishing.
 * It incorporates monitoring so fishermen and regulators know exactly how much fish is being caught, and as a result, fishing stops once catch limits have been reached.
 * Each sector receives its own share of the annual catch. While respecting catch limits, the co-ops provide fishermen with the flexibility to set their own fishing guidelines so they can run their businesses more efficiently and profitably. Those who develop more innovative fishing gear can target more of the healthy fish populations and avoid those populations that are struggling."
 * Fishermen earning more money for less fishing under the new system. In 2010, landings are down compared to 2009. Only 85.8 percent of total landings last year were landed this year (for the same period of time). Meanwhile, revenues are up 112.4 percent.
 * Sector fishermen are avoiding weak stocks and targeting robust stocks. The ratio of Georges Bank cod to Georges Bank haddock (in metric tons) in 2009 was 1121:1532. In 2010, it was 743:2768.
 * Landings of Gulf of Maine winter flounder, a stock at very low abundance, are being effectively avoided under sectors. In 2009, 66 metric tons were landed. In 2010, 32 metric tons were landed."

In the June 2024 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Supreme Court ruling, it was found that the law not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Candidates for Presidency of United States, 2008

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Candidates for Presidency of United States, 2008
This page duplicates the work being done on U.S. presidential election, 2008. Though something like this should eventually be created it is too early at this point IMHO and, if not, the article should be named U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2008 in accordance with convention - Jord 01:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 02:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculation. Gamaliel 02:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There aren't any Democratic party candidates for the 2008 Presidential election, yet. This will be speculation for at least a couple more years.  When it ceases to be speculation, it should be covered under U.S. presidential election, 2008. --BM 03:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. By the way, while U.S. presidential election, 2008  will obviously be in the Wikipedia at some point, right now it looks to me to be completely unencyclopedic chat, idle speculation, and gossip-mongering about who are "potential" candidates, and various other unsourced pontificating.   Under the United States constitution, anybody who is an American by birth who will be 35 or over in January, 2009, is a potential candidate.    There are number of political blogs and web sites where people can and do speculate about the coming election. Wikipedia is not a chat room. --BM 03:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. U.S. presidential election, 2008 covers the subject sufficiently for now. Carrp | Talk 03:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable until the actual election day. JoaoRicardo 04:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, move and rework. Cleanup, maybe. Notable speculation is as good as a notable fact. It's a question of fame and importance. This is an important and often discussed topic in the U.S., and therefore it's a totally valid subject. Someday it might be merged into a 2008 Dem. primaries article as a section about early speculation. Everyking 08:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete prediction of far-off future events is not an encyclopedia's purpose. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 14:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I agree with Everyking's arguments, the article is, as Jord notes, completely duplicative of material covered on U.S. presidential election, 2008, which I believe with some confidence (as a regular contributor there) doesn't need any breakout at this time. Samaritan 15:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Indeed and when it needs its own article it should be called U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2008.  Why?  See U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004 - this is the naming convention for such a thing - Jord 16:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Starblind's argument. Rossami (talk) 19:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Duplicative Trödel| talk 21:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to U.S. presidential election, 2008. --Idont Havaname 04:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly an improper duplicate. Neutralitytalk 02:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as speculative and redundant, plus most of what everyone else said above me. Tuf-Kat 03:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Same Old Tunes

Same Old Tunes is the debut album by Swedish punk rock band Millencolin, released on 28 October 1994 in Sweden by Burning Heart Records under the original title Tiny Tunes.

The song "Da Strike" was released as the album's single, with an accompanying music video.

Controversy
The album's title and cover art mimicked the cartoon television show Tiny Toon Adventures, leading to a number of copyright infringement lawsuits against the band when the album was re-released in the United States on 22 September 1998 through Epitaph Records. Warner Bros, the owner of Tiny Toon Adventures, sued the record label and caused the band to change the title and cover art. They chose the title Same Old Tunes to reflect the fact that the album's track list had not changed.

The band also printed T-shirts for the song "Chiquita Chaser" that imitated the logo of Chiquita Brands International, who threatened them with a lawsuit causing them to cease production of the shirts.

Track listing
All songs written by Nikola Šarčević except where noted.

Millencolin

 * Nikola Šarčević – lead vocals, bass guitar
 * Erik Ohlsson – guitar
 * Mathias Färm – guitar
 * Fredrik Larzon – drums

Additional musicians

 * Fredrik Folcke – saxophone on "Da Strike"

title: Same Old Tunes


text: Talk:Same Old Tunes

title: Talk:Same Old Tunes


text:
Eloise Klein Healy

Eloise Klein Healy (born 1943) is an American poet. She has published five books of poetry and three chapbooks. Her collection of poems, Passing, was a finalist for the 2003 Lambda Literary Awards in Poetry and the Audre Lorde Award from The Publishing Triangle. Healy has also received the Grand Prize of the Los Angeles Poetry Festival and has received six Pushcart Prize nominations.

Biography
Healy was born in 1943 in El Paso, Texas and grew up in rural Iowa. She graduated from Immaculate Heart College. She was involved in the Woman's Building, the well known West Coast feminist cultural center, throughout the 1970s and 1980s in various capacities including as a teacher and a member of the Board of Directors. Healy became the first Poet Laureate of Los Angeles in 2012. She was instrumental in directing the women's studies program at Cal State Northridge, started the MFA program in creative writing at Antioch University, Los Angeles where she is professor emeritus, and founded Arktoi Books, an imprint of Red Hen Press.

Individual works

 * Artemis In Echo Park: Poetry, Firebrand Books, 1991, ISBN 9780932379900
 * Building Some Changes, (chapbook), (A Beyond Baroque New Book), Beyond Baroque Foundation, 1976, OCLC: 2462676
 * The Islands Project, Red Hen Press, 2007, ISBN 978 1597090858
 * Ordinary Wisdom, Red Hen Press, 2005, ISBN 978 1597090568
 * A Packet Beating Like a Heart, (chapbook), Books of a Feather, 1981, OCLC: 8463876
 * Passing, Red Hen Press, 2002, ISBN 978-1888996548
 * A Wild Surmise: New & Selected Poems & Recordings, Red Hen Press, 2013, ISBN 978-1597097598
 * Women's Studies Chronicles (Laguna Poets Series, 99), The Inevitable Press, 1998, ISBN 978-1891281334 (chapbook)

Anthologies including her writings

 * Another City: Writing from Los Angeles, ed. David L. Ulin, City Lights Publishers, 2001, ISBN 978-0872863910
 * The Geography of Home: California's Poetry of Place, Heyday Books, 1999, ISBN 9781890771195
 * Grand Passion: Poets of Los Angeles and Beyond, principal ed., Suzanne Lummis, Red Wind Books, 1995, ISBN 9780962284793
 * Intimate Nature: The Bond Between Women and Animals, eds., Barbara Peterson, Brenda Peterson and Deena Metzger, Ballantine Books, 1999, ISBN 9780449911228
 * The World in Us: Lesbian and Gay Poetry of the Next Wave, eds., Michael Lassell, Elena Georgiou, St. Martin's Press, 2000, ISBN 9780312209438

title: Eloise Klein Healy


text:
Moto Rumi

The Moto Rumi organisation was formed at the beginning of the twentieth century and originally supplied cast components to the textile machinery industry. At the outbreak of World War II, Rumi became involved in the manufacture of armaments, miniature submarines and torpedoes. After the end of the war in 1950, Rumi decided to get involved in the manufacture of lightweight motorcycles. It was also decided to base the powerplant on the horizontal twin two stroke unit of 125 cc capacity.

In 1952, with the popularity of scooters, Rumi started manufacturing the Squirrel or Scoiottolo – a cast aluminum monocoque body with tubular swinging arm rear suspension and teleforks with 14 inch wheels and three gears. Subsequent models had a four speed gearbox and electric starter and were reputed to be the fastest scooters then in production.

1952
In 1952, Rumi was producing the "sports" and "super sport" motorcycle models (single and twin carburettor versions respectively). The "super sport" was superseded by the "Competizione" or "Gobbetto", a pure factory racer.

1954
1954 brought the production of the Formichino or Little Ant scooter, which was reputedly designed by Ing Salvatti. A "Competizione" won the Italian National Championship in 1954.

The entire body (with exception of the front forks, crash rails and legshields) was produced in cast aluminium, with the front and rear castings bolted to the engine to form a monocoque which resulted in a light and rigid construction. The rear swinging arm, chaincase and silencer box were also constructed in cast aluminium. These models originally had 8 inch wheels, but by 1958 they reverted to 10 inch which gave a better stability and ground clearance.

1955
During 1955, the "Competizione" was superseded by the "Junior Corsa" and "Junior Gentleman".

1958
In 1958, Rumi also produced a sports version called the "Tipo Sport" which had a 22 mm carburettor, larger exhaust pipes and a higher compression ratio.

1957/58
In 1957/58 and 1960, Rumi won the famous Bol d'Or 24-hour races at Montlhery in France and subsequently Rumi produced the Bol d'Or scooter named after the race.

In the UK, it sported dropped handlebars, chrome plated aluminium cylinders and twin carburettors but the French version favoured the Bol d'or with a single 22 mm carburettor.

Liquidation
During the 1960s, Rumi went into liquidation and Donnino Rumi went back to being a sculptor and artist.

title: Moto Rumi


text:
Hiroaki Abe

Hiroaki Abe (阿部 弘毅) was an admiral in the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

Early career
Abe was born in Yonezawa city in Yamagata prefecture in northern Japan. He graduated from the 39th class of the Imperial Japanese Naval Academy in 1911, with a ranking of 26th out of a class of 148 cadets. As a midshipman, he served on the cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Soya and battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Mikasa. After his promotion to ensign on 1 December 1912, he was assigned to the cruisers JAPANESE CRUISER Nisshin and JAPANESE CRUISER Chikuma, and the battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Kongō.

After attending torpedo school and naval artillery school, he was promoted to sub-lieutenant and served on the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Akebono, followed by the cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Chitose during World War I. However, it does not appear that Abe experienced combat during his tour of duty.

After the end of the war, he served in mostly staff positions until he was given his first command on 20 July 1922, the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Ushio. He then commanded the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Hatsuyuki, and was promoted to lieutenant commander the following year on 1 December 1923. He was captain of the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Kaki for one year in 1925.

Abe returned to the Naval Staff College in 1926. He was promoted to commander on 10 December 1928, and captain on 1 December 1932. In 1936, he assumed command of the cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Jintsu, and a year later, that of the battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Fusō.

Pacific War
On 15 November 1938, Abe was promoted to the rank of rear admiral. He was thus in command of Cruiser Division 8 (CruDiv8) during the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the subsequent Battle of Wake Island.

During the Guadalcanal campaign, as commander of Combat Division 11 (BatDiv 3 and CruDiv 8), he led his ships as the vanguard group at the Battle of the Eastern Solomons from 23–25 August 1942 and the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands from 26–28 October. He was promoted to vice admiral on 1 November.

However, during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal on 12–13 November, when assigned to bombard Henderson Field on Guadalcanal, he broke off his attack after encountering an almost completely crippling 40 minutes of intense combat with U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Daniel Callaghan's Task Group 67.4 (TG 67.4). Abe lost his flagship, the battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Hiei, which he ordered scuttled after it had been seriously damaged, as well as two destroyers. Abe himself was wounded – and his chief of staff (Captain Masakane Suzuki) was killed – by machine-gun fire from the USS Laffey (DD-459), a destroyer that he sank afterwards. But he still had the undamaged battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Kirishima to bombard Henderson Field and enough destroyers to finish off damaged Allied vessels. His failure to aggressively push through his attack against an inferior enemy force created tremendous controversy, and he was relieved of his command by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

Abe was forced to resign from the Imperial Japanese Navy soon afterward in March 1943. He died in 1949.

His younger brother, Toshio Abe (阿部 俊雄), was also a career navy officer, and was captain of the aircraft carrier JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Shinano. Abe went down with Shinano, when she was torpedoed and sunk by the submarine USS Archerfish (SS-311) while performing trials.

Notable positions held

 * Crewmember, BB Kongō – 27 May 1914 – 1 December 1914
 * Staff Officer, 3rd Fleet – 1 December 1919 – 10 November 1921
 * Torpedo Officer, CL Tama – 10 May 1923 – 1 May 1924
 * Senior Staff Officer, DesRon 2 – 30 November 1929 – 31 October 1931
 * ComDesDiv 1 – 31 October 1931 – 16 May 1932
 * ComDesDiv 2 – 15 November 1932 – 15 November 1933
 * ComDesDiv 23 – 15 November 1933 – 15 November 1934
 * Commanding Officer, CL Jintsu – 1 December 1936 – 1 December 1937
 * Commanding Officer, BB Fusō – 1 December 1937 – 1 April 1938
 * Commanding Officer, Air Group 14 - 1 April 1938 - 15 December 1938
 * Chief Instructor of the Naval Academy - 15 December 1938 - 1 November 1940
 * ComDesRon 6 – 15 November 1940 – 21 July 1941
 * ComCruDiv 8 – 1 August 1941 – 14 July 1942
 * ComBatDiv 11 – 14 July 1942 – 20 December 1942

Dates of promotions

 * Midshipman – 18 July 1911
 * Ensign – 1 December 1912
 * Sublieutenant – 1 December 1914
 * Lieutenant – 1 December 1917
 * Lieutenant Commander – 1 December 1923
 * Commander – 10 December 1928
 * Captain – 1 December 1932
 * Rear Admiral – 15 November 1938
 * Vice Admiral – 1 November 1942

title: Hiroaki Abe


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Hudkins

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 13:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Hudkins

 * Delete nonnotable high school teacher, posted by student. Mostly NPOV farce.  Postdlf 01:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - 3 Google hits, possible student prank. Megan1967 03:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. Not notable. JoaoRicardo 04:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn -- Cleduc 06:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious joke/vandalism. — Brim 09:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete – flamurai (t) 11:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete though I do admit the part about "He has humored people with his fart machine" made me laugh. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 14:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, prankish tribute or vandalism. Wyss 20:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A couple of good quotes for BJAODN here. --Idont Havaname 04:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Ethriel

Ethriel, son of Íriel Fáid, according to medieval Irish legends and historical traditions, succeeded his father as High King of Ireland. During his reign he cleared six plains. He ruled for twenty years, until he was killed in the Battle of Rairiu by Conmáel in revenge for his father Éber Finn, who had been killed by Ethriel's grandfather Érimón. He was the last of the chieftains who arrived in the invasion of the sons of Míl to rule Ireland. The Lebor Gabála Érenn says that during his reign Tautanes, king of Assyria, died (1182 BC according to Jerome's Chronicon), as did Hector and Achilles (the Trojan War is usually dated to the 13th century BC), and Samson was king of the Tribe of Dan in ancient Israel. Geoffrey Keating dates his reign from 1259 to 1239 BC, the Annals of the Four Masters from 1671 to 1651 BC.

title: Ethriel


text: User talk:66.208.192.92

title: User talk:66.208.192.92