

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
The California Board of Forestry this week is considering proposed state timber-harvest regulations
that would continue harmful logging adjacent to critical salmon
streams, prevent recovery of key salmon watersheds, and essentially
guarantee extinction of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from California. The Center for Biological Diversity sent comments
to the Board this week regarding the failure of the proposed rules to
protect coho and other salmon; the Center warned of the likelihood for
illegal take of salmon species listed under the federal and state
Endangered Species Acts if the rules are adopted. The Board will hold
hearings today and tomorrow in Sacramento on the proposed rules.
"For
a decade, the Board of Forestry has avoided taking the steps that are
necessary to protect California's salmon from the impacts of logging
activities, and meanwhile coho salmon have spiraled toward extinction,"
said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center for Biological
Diversity. "These unacceptable rules would continue business-as-usual
logging practices and facilitate the dismantling of the last shaded,
cold-water forest refuges for fish."
The Board is
updating its "threatened or impaired watershed" logging rules, state
forest practice rules originally adopted in 2000 that regulate
commercial timber harvesting on private land in watersheds harboring
threatened or endangered salmon species and in water bodies listed as
impaired under the federal Clean Water Act. Most remaining coho salmon
streams in northern and central California are within private
forestlands subject to California's Forest Practice Rules.
The
Board has proposed a smorgasbord of options for riparian timber-harvest
rule changes, almost all of which reduce critical riparian protection.
The rules would also: allow excessive road densities, near-stream roads
and road stream crossings that will result in degradation of salmon
habitat with sediment; approve logging and road building on unstable
slopes and soils; allow logging of critical headwaters refugia; and
prevent previously logged watersheds from adequately recovering.
"The
Board of Forestry should adopt stronger timber harvest regulations to
protect all salmon streams and should prohibit logging in key
watersheds in order to allow impaired areas to recover," said Justin
Augustine, a Center attorney. "The Board's proposed approach would
likely result in timber-harvest plans violating the Endangered Species
Act, causing illegal take of salmon, and undermining the recovery of
listed salmonids."
Coho salmon in the central California coast, from
Punta Gorda south to the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz, are listed as
endangered by both the state and federal governments. The central coast
spawning population had declined to about 56,000 fish by the mid-1960s;
in recent years only 500 to 1,000 wild coho have returned to the
central coast region to spawn. Coho in Northern California, from Punta Gorda to the Oregon border, are
listed as threatened by both the state and federal governments. Up to
half a million coho spawned in this region as late as the 1940s. By the
1990s, only about 7,000 coho spawned in Northern California. Coho have
been eliminated from more than half of their historical streams in
California, and most remaining populations are extremely isolated, with
fewer than 100 fish.
The effects of logging
activities on coho salmon habitat have been catastrophic. Coho spawn,
and the young rear, in cold-water streams with abundant protective
cover, mostly provided by fallen trees. For this reason, coho require
dense coastal forests for their survival. Removal of trees eliminates
shade for streams, increases water temperatures, and reduces the amount
of large woody debris that falls into streams to provide critical
habitat for rearing salmonids. Thousands of miles of temporary logging
roads create large-scale soil instability on the steep slopes in
coastal Northern California, eroding huge quantities of fine sediment
into streams, filling pools, degrading spawning gravels, and burying
coho habitat.
The Board of Forestry and the timber
industry often blame the loss of coho on factors other than logging,
such as ocean conditions. However, ocean conditions have been largely
favorable for coho salmon production since 1998, yet coho populations
continue to decline, a clear indication that lack of suitable
freshwater habitat is constraining coho salmon recovery.
The
proposed rules are not based on best science or good land-management
principles and are geared toward allowing more timber harvest in
critical coho watersheds. Even though the Board of Forestry's supposed
salmon protections to date have failed to protect coho, the agency is
now proposing rules that in some instances would further erode habitat
protections. The watersheds covered by the rules have been subjected to
unreasonable levels of logging well over acceptable limits to maintain
suitable conditions for salmon. Many of the sub-basins covered by the
rules have been altered more than 50 percent due to logging in the past
few decades, and logging road networks far exceed levels known to
increase sediment yield and alter hydrology. Intact functional patches
of salmonid habitat are extremely limited or have been completely
eliminated by logging in many of the watersheds, such as the Russian
and Gualala Rivers.
If prompt action is not taken to
reverse the decline in freshwater habitat quality for coho salmon
before predicted less favorable ocean productivity and climate cycles
occur between 2015 and 2025, coho salmon will likely go extinct
throughout the state. In 2008, renowned California native fish expert
Dr. Peter Moyle published a report for CalTrout, SOS: California's Native Fish Crisis, documenting
the unprecedented decline of California's native salmonids. Thirteen of
California's 21 native salmonids are in extreme danger of extinction,
including coho salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service reported
in 2008 that coastal coho populations plunged 73 percent compared with
the previous spawning season. Severely reduced salmon populations
precipitated a moratorium on commercial and recreational salmon fishing
throughout the state in 2008 and 2009, expected to cause economic
losses of $255 million and 2,263 jobs.
The most
important factor for survival of California's coho is protecting and
enhancing the watersheds that still have the potential to support the
species, such as Scott and Waddell Creeks in San Mateo County and the
Garcia, Noyo, and Gualala rivers in Mendocino County.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"Let’s be clear — this proposal isn’t a compromise, it’s a capitulation," said one progressive lawmaker in the US House.
Fury on the progressive left and among lawmakers who opposed such "capitulation" to the Republican Party erupted overnight after a handful of Senate Democrats joined with their GOP counterparts in a procedural vote on Sunday night to end the government shutdown without gaining any meaningful concessions.
With the support of eight members of the Democratic caucus—Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Angus King of Maine, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire—Republicans in the upper chamber secured the necessary 60 votes needed to pass a cloture vote that paves the way for a deal critics warn does nothing to save Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed due to the GOP spending bill passed earlier this year and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
“It is thoroughly disappointing that, while most Americans overwhelmingly oppose Republicans’ horrific budget, support the fight to curtail Trump’s authoritarianism, and want to protect healthcare, some Democrats failed to hold the line, and squandered an opportunity to score a popular and decisive win for the American people," said Lisa Gilbert, co-director of the progressive watchdog group Public Citizen.
The deal will combine three separate funding measures into a single stopgap bill that will reopen the government and keep it funded through the end of January of 2026, but contains no restoration of Medicaid funding, fails to curb Trump rescissions that have devastated government agencies and programs, and does nothing to address Affordable Care Act subsidies other than a "meaningless" promised vote to extend them within 40 days—a vote nearly sure to fail in the Senate and likely not even taken up in the US House, controlled by Republicans.
"What the election showed is that the American people want us to stand up to Trumpism—to his war against working people, to his authoritarianism. That is what people wanted, but tonight that is not what happened." —Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
"How absolutely pathetic," declared the Justice Democrats, an advocacy group that focuses on assisting progressive challengers willing to take on more establishment lawmakers in office. "Your voters expect you to hold the line for their basic healthcare and food benefits. This is just surrender. Every Senate Democrat that joined Republicans to pass this sold the American people out and we should make sure they have no future in public office."
"Let’s be clear — this proposal isn’t a compromise, it’s a capitulation," said Rep. Jonathan L. Jackson (D-Ill.). "Millions would lose their health coverage, and millions more would face skyrocketing premiums. The Senate should reject this misguided plan. In the House, my vote will be HELL NO."
The original Dem demands were:1) Permanent ACA subsidies2) Medicaid funding restored3) No more blank checks for the regime (rescission)They dropped Medicaid immediately. Went silent on rescission. Cut back to 1 year of subsidies on Friday. And surrendered today.The Senate Democrats!
— Ezra Levin ❌👑 (@ezralevin.bsky.social) November 9, 2025 at 9:29 PM
For Gilbert, the shutdown exhibited exactly "how far Republicans will go to demonstrate subservience to their authoritarian leader, even at the expense of the most basic needs of ordinary Americans. Republicans have destroyed affordable healthcare access for millions of Americans, and have allowed the President to weaponize hunger against millions more of our most vulnerable people, all so that they can bully through a budget that’s catapulting us towards a dystopian future of stark inequality."
While the shutdown may come to an end this week, Gilbert said it remains imperative that "everyone who cares about the well-being of Americans to use all the leverage they have to push back on Trump’s authoritarianism and his cannibalizing of the basic needs of Americans for the benefit of his corporate donors and billionaire friends."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who, like Sen. King of Maine, caucuses with the Democrats, called it a "very bad night" as he condemned the eight members of the caucus for making a "very, very bad vote" at a time when the political winds and the moral argument were clearly on the side of holding the line.
"What it does, first of all," said Sanders in a statement following the vote, "is it raises healthcare premiums for over 20 million Americans by doubling, and in some cases tripling or quadrupling. People can't afford that when we are already paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare. Number two, it paves the way for 15 million people to be thrown off of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," citing a statistic that indicates over 50,000 people "will die unnecessarily each year" due to lack of adequate healthcare coverage.
"All of that was done," continued Sanders, "to give a $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%." In a political context, Sanders noted that last week's electoral wins in numerous races across the country showed that voters are in the mood to reward lawmakers who stand up to President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress, rather than give in to them.
"What the election showed is that the American people want us to stand up to Trumpism—to his war against working people, to his authoritarianism," he said. "That is what people wanted, but tonight that is not what happened."
Democrats in the House, who had backed their Democratic colleagues for holding the line over 40 days in the Senate, fumed over the failure to keep going.
"Americans have endured the pain of the longest government shutdown in history for a 'deal' that guarantees nothing on healthcare," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). "If Republicans wanted to vote to extend subsidies, they would’ve done it already. Capitulating is unacceptable."
"What Senate Dems who voted for this horseshit deal did was fuck over all the hard work people put in to Tuesday’s elections." —Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)
Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, voted "no" on the deal. Still, it's widely understood he was the driving force behind putting the agreement together and privately supported the eight lawmakers—none of whom are facing reelection in 2026—to cross over.
"Schumer voting 'no' for a shutdown deal he facilitated every step of the way," noted journalist Ken Klippenstein. "Just trying to keep his hands clean. Don't fall for it."
In the wake of the vote, others called for Schumer to resign or be primaried for capitulating to deliver practically nothing.
The surrender by Democrats in the Senate facilitated by Schumer, opined journalist Krystal Ball, "perfectly encapsulates why centrists are the problem for the party both substantively and electorally. After romping nationwide victories, the worst members of the Democratic caucus decided to abandon the healthcare fight, which hurts Americans and demobilizes their own base."
"This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless," said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.
President Donald Trump's Agriculture Department on Saturday threatened to penalize states that don't "immediately undo" steps taken to pay out full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November following a Supreme Court order that temporarily allowed the administration to withhold billions of dollars of aid.
In a memo, the US Department of Agriculture warned that "failure to comply" with the administration's directive "may result in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the federal share of state administrative costs and holding states liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that it appears the Trump administration is "demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it."
"They would rather go door to door, taking away people's food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table," said Craig.
The USDA memo came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that had required the Trump administration to distribute SNAP funds in full amid the ongoing government shutdown. SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by states.
The administration took steps to comply with the district court order while also appealing it, sparking widespread confusion. Some states, including Massachusetts and California, moved quickly to distribute full benefits late last week. Some reported waking up Friday with full benefits in their accounts.
"In the dead of night, the Trump administration ordered states to stop issuing SNAP benefits," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in response to the Saturday USDA memo. "This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless."
Under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund SNAP benefits for November, the average recipient will see a 61% cut to aid and millions will see their benefits reduced to zero, according to one analysis.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, stressed in a statement that "the Trump administration all along has had both the power and the authority to ensure that SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted, but chose not to act and to actively fight against providing this essential support."
"Meanwhile, millions of Americans already struggling to make ends meet have been left scrambling to feed their families," said FitzSimons. "Families and states are experiencing undue stress and anxiety with confusing messages coming from the administration. The Trump administration’s decision to continue to fight against providing SNAP benefits furthers the unprecedented humanitarian crisis driven by the loss of the nation’s most important and effective anti-hunger program."
"Trump said he’d leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.
"Republicans said they might vote to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, but only if we agree to include a backdoor national abortion ban," Wyden said in remarks on the Senate floor.
The senator was referring to a reported GOP demand that any extension of ACA subsidies must include language that bars the tax credits from being used to purchase plans that cover abortion care.
But as the health policy organization KFF has noted, the ACA already has "specific language that applies Hyde Amendment restrictions to the use of premium tax credits, limiting them to using federal funds to pay for abortions only in cases that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest."
"The ACA also explicitly allows states to bar all plans participating in the state marketplace from covering abortions, which 25 states have done since the ACA was signed into law in 2010," according to KFF.
Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that "Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion."
"It's not," Wyden continued. "What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations."
"The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans," the senator added. "Trump said he'd leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along."
The GOP effort to attach anti-abortion provisions to government funding legislation adds yet another hurdle in negotiations to end the shutdown, which the Trump administration has used to throttle federal nutrition assistance and accelerate its purge of the federal workforce.
Trump is also pushing a proposal that would differently distribute federal funds that would have otherwise gone toward the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"It sounds like it could be a plan for health accounts that could be used for insurance that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions, which could create a death spiral in ACA plans that do," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.