

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.

Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity, (575) 313-7017
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in eastern Arizona, where
Mexican gray wolves roam, has proposed a new policy requiring proper
disposal of livestock carcasses - the first time livestock owners would
be tasked with a responsibility to prevent conflicts with wolves.
If the remains of cattle (and sometimes horses and sheep) that have
died of non-wolf causes are not made inedible or removed, they can
attract wolves to prey on live cattle that may be nearby the carcass,
and habituate them to domestic animals instead of their natural prey.
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in eastern Arizona, where
Mexican gray wolves roam, has proposed a new policy requiring proper
disposal of livestock carcasses - the first time livestock owners would
be tasked with a responsibility to prevent conflicts with wolves.
If the remains of cattle (and sometimes horses and sheep) that have
died of non-wolf causes are not made inedible or removed, they can
attract wolves to prey on live cattle that may be nearby the carcass,
and habituate them to domestic animals instead of their natural prey.
The new policy would effectively ban the practice of baiting wolves
into preying on domestic animals, which can lead to wolves being
trapped or shot by the government in retribution. Such "predator
control" actions are undermining recovery of the Mexican wolf, North
America's most imperiled mammal. The proposed change would help the
beleaguered species recover.
Michael Robinson, a
conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity in
Silver City, N.M., commended the Forest Service for the proposal.
"Ensuring that cattle and horses that die of non-wolf causes don't
entice Mexican wolves into scavenging was recommended by independent
scientists and is just plain common sense," Robinson said.
"If wolves and livestock are to coexist, we must strive to prevent
conflicts rather than blame the wolves once they have already become
used to regarding domestic animals as prey," he said.
The Apache-Sitgreaves is one of several Southwestern national forests
updating their 10-year forest plans, and is the first unit of
government to propose a livestock carcass clean-up policy in the
Southwest. The policy was instituted from the outset of the successful
reintroduction of northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves to Yellowstone
National Park and central Idaho (see background information, below).
Cattle, sheep and horses on public lands die from many causes. During
drought years especially, animals stressed by poor nutrition feed on
poisonous plants. Others forage on steep slopes, from which they fall
to their deaths. Disease, lightning - a surprisingly common cause of death.-
collisions with vehicles, predators, and birth-related deaths also take
a toll. When there is access via roads, the livestock carcasses can be
hauled away or buried. In remote areas, depending on conditions,
carcasses can be made inedible by using corrosive lime, fire or even
dynamite.
The Forest Service's proposal comes in
the form of a line of text in its Draft Desired Conditions for the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests' Revised Forest Plan: "Livestock
carcasses are not available for scavenging within the Mexican Wolf
Recovery Zone." (See https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/documents/ASNF-Draft-DC-2008-08-15.pdf, p. 25.)
The proposal's brevity and informality - there is a Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, but no official recovery "zone" -
belies its significance as a condition to be implemented through new
terms written into livestock grazing permits, once the plan is
finalized.
The Center for Biological Diversity is
requesting that the provision be applied not just in the Apache
National Forest portion of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which
consists of the combined Gila and Apache National Forests, but also on
all lands governed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests' Revised
Forest Plan. The Sitgreaves National Forest is important wolf habitat
in its own right and could serve as a travel corridor for wolves to
enable them to reach the Grand Canyon ecosystem. Including the
Sitgreaves National Forest would also take into account an ongoing U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service rule-change process intended to allow wolves
to roam beyond the current boundaries.
The Forest Plan Revision Team is inviting public comment on the proposed changes through October 15th via e-mail at: Asnf.planning@fs.fed.us
Background
Several instances have come to light involving Mexican gray wolves that
originally preyed on elk and ignored cows beginning to prey on cows and
ignoring elk after scavenging on already-dead cattle. This was a
problem largely averted in reintroducing northern Rocky Mountain gray
wolves to Yellowstone and Idaho just three years before the
Southwestern wolf-reintroduction program was begun.
The rule governing the 1995 reintroduction of wolves to the northern
Rocky Mountains stated: "If livestock carrion or carcasses are not
being used as bait for an authorized control action on Federal lands,
it must be removed or otherwise disposed of so that they do not attract
wolves." The northern Rockies rule further specified that evidence of
artificial or intentional feeding of wolves would preclude labeling a
wolf in the vicinity a "problem wolf," subject to removal.
But the 1998 rule governing the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction
included no such protections. The regulatory disparity is part of the
reason that, while the northern Rockies now support around 1,450
wolves, the Mexican wolves reintroduced to the Southwest in 1998 number
around 50 animals still in the wild.
The June 2001
Three-Year Review (aka Paquet Report) of the Mexican wolf
reintroduction program, written by a panel of independent scientists
contracted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, advised "Requir[ing]
livestock operators on public land to take some responsibility for
carcass management/disposal to reduce the likelihood that wolves become
habituated to feeding on livestock."
The American
Society of Mammalogists in June 2007 urged "protect[ing] wolves from
the consequences of scavenging on livestock carcasses."
Until now, no government agency would accept responsibility for this.
The Forest Service, which manages the land, has pointed at the Fish and
Wildlife Service as the agency that sets wolf policy. And the Fish and
Wildlife Service defers to a group of six government agencies,
including itself and the Forest Service, which opposes making owners of
stock responsible in any way for preventing scavenging and habituation.
This Catch-22 has been deadly for the wolves.
Despite the abundance of livestock, 88 percent of what the Mexican
wolves eat consists of native ungulates, such as elk and deer, and only
4 percent is livestock (including that which they scavenged but did not
kill), according to the only study on the wolves' diet conducted since
their reintroduction in 1998. But the wolf population is so low and the
rules so draconian that the official responses to even the occasional
livestock depredation serve to thwart recovery.
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) 623-5252The White House adviser offered "a very good definition of imperialism," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"Belligerent" was how one Democratic lawmaker described a diatribe given by top White House adviser Stephen Miller on CNN Monday evening regarding the Trump administration's right to take over Venezuela—or any other country—if doing so is in the supposed interest of the US.
To Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), however, Miller was simply providing viewers with "a very good definition of imperialism" as he described the worldview the administration is operating under as it takes control of Venezuela and eyes other countries, including Greenland, that it believes it can and should invade.
"This is what imperialism is all about," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper. "And I suspect that people all over the world are saying, ‘Wow, we’re going back to where we were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, where the big, powerful countries were exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources.'"
The senator spoke to Tapper shortly after Miller's interview, in which the news anchor asked whether President Donald Trump would support holding an election in Venezuela days after the US military bombed the country and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Miller refused to directly engage with the question, saying only that it would be "absurd and preposterous" for the US to install Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado as the leader of the country, before asking Tapper to "give [him] the floor" and allow him to explain the White House's view on foreign policy.
"The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere," said Miller. "We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries but not to us."
Instead of "demanding that elections be held" in Venezuela, he added, "the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology."
MILLER: The US is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It's absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of… pic.twitter.com/wXK2UxnqUj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2026
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that Venezuela "stole" oil from the United States. The country is believed to have the largest oil reserves in the world, and the government nationalized its petroleum industry in 1976, including projects that had been run by US-based ExxonMobil. The last privately run oil operations were nationalized in 2007 by then-President Hugo Chavez.
Miller offered one of the most explicit explanations of the White House's view yet: that "sovereign countries don’t get sovereignty if the US wants their resources," as Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) translated in a social media post.
Moulton called Miller's tirade "genuinely unhinged" and "a disturbing window into how this administration thinks about the world."
Miller's remarks followed a similarly blunt statement at a UN Security Council emergency meeting by US Ambassador Michael Waltz.
"You cannot continue to have the largest energy reserves in the world under the control of adversaries of the United States," said Waltz.
Miller's description of the White House's current view on foreign policy followed threats from Trump against countries including Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland, and further comments suggested that the administration could soon move to take control of the latter country—even though it is part of the kingdom of Denmark, which along with the US is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
"Greenland should be part of the United States," said Miller. "The president has been very clear about that, that is the formal position of the US government."
Miller: “Greenland has a population of 30,000 people. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The United States is the power of NATO. Greenland should be part of the United States.”
“Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland.” pic.twitter.com/d7i2kMXFMD
— Dori Toribio (@DoriToribio) January 5, 2026
He dismissed the idea that the takeover of Greenland, home to about 56,000 people, would involve a military operation—though Trump has said he would not rule out using force—and said that "nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
The vast island is strategically located in the Arctic Circle and has largely untapped reserves of rare-earth minerals.
Danish and Greenlandic officials have condemned Trump's latest threats this week, with Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warning that, in accordance with the NATO treaty, "everything would come to an end" if the US attacks another NATO country.
“The international community as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance—all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another," she told Danish news channel Live News on Monday.
The Danish government called an emergency meeting of its Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday to discuss "the kingdom's relationship with the United States."
On CNN, Sanders noted that as Trump sets his sights on controlling oil reserves in Venezuela and resources in Greenland, people across the president's own country are struggling under rising costs and financial insecurity.
"Maybe instead of trying to run Venezuela," said Sanders, "the president might try to do a better job running the United States of America."
"He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump."
Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of "cowardice" for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.
Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro's ouster, declaring that "we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime."
Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was "complicated," adding that it was "for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken."
Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that "it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal."
"It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious," Corbyn wrote. "It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high."
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States."
The UK, according to the government's foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the "work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US."
Corbyn argued that the government's approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States," Corbyn wrote. "Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law."
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," said Sen. Ed Markey.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting—which helped fund NPR, PBS, and many local public television and radio outlets—announced Monday that its board of directors has voted to dissolve the 58-year-old private nonprofit, a move one Democratic US senator blamed on Republican efforts to destroy the venerable American institution.
CPB said in a statement that Sunday's board of directors vote "follows Congress’ rescission of all of CPB’s federal funding and comes after sustained political attacks that made it impossible for CPB to continue operating as the Public Broadcasting Act intended."
Patricia Harrison, CPB's president and CEO, said Monday that "for more than half a century, CPB existed to ensure that all Americans—regardless of geography, income, or background—had access to trusted news, educational programming, and local storytelling."
"When the [Trump] administration and Congress rescinded federal funding, our board faced a profound responsibility: CPB’s final act would be to protect the integrity of the public media system and the democratic values by dissolving, rather than allowing the organization to remain defunded and vulnerable to additional attacks," Harrison added.
CPB board chair Ruby Calvert said: “What has happened to public media is devastating. After nearly six decades of innovative, educational public television and radio service, Congress eliminated all funding for CPB, leaving the board with no way to continue the organization or support the public media system that depends on it."
"Yet, even in this moment, I am convinced that public media will survive, and that a new Congress will address public media’s role in our country because it is critical to our children's education, our history, culture, and democracy to do so," Calvert added.
The dissolution of CPB won't end NPR, PBS, or other public media outlets—which are overwhelmingly funded via contributions by private donors and by viewers and listeners.
President Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, and conservative advocacy groups—including the Heritage Foundation, which led work on Project 2025, the right-wing roadmap for remaking the federal government whose agenda includes stripping CPB funding—argue that NPR, PBS and other public outlets have become too "woke" and liberally "biased." In May, Trump signed an executive order calling for an end to taxpayer support for CPB-funded media.
Critics counter that Republican attacks on CPB have little to do with ensuring balanced coverage and fiscal responsibility and more to do with punishing media outlets that are critical of Trump and his policies.
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Monday.
“Today’s decision to dissolve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting marks a grave loss for the American public," Markey continued. "For generations, CPB helped ensure access to trusted news, quality children’s programming, local storytelling, and vital emergency information for millions of people in Massachusetts and across the country."
"CPB nurtured and developed our public broadcasting system, which is truly the crown jewel of America’s media mix," he added. “This fight is not over. I will continue to fight for public media and oppose authoritarian efforts to shut down dissent, threaten journalists, and undermine free speech in the United States of America.”
Free press defenders also lamented CPB's imminent dissolution, as well as consolidation in the corporate mainstream media.
"Meanwhile," said human rights attorney Qasim Rashid on Bluesky, "billionaires continue to buy up major legacy media to prevent criticism of Trump."