November, 11 2008, 09:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495
Chris Frissell, Pacific Rivers Council, (406) 471-3167
Roland Knapp, University of California, Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory, (760) 647-0034
Court Considers Interim Measures to Protect California's Sensitive Native Fish and Amphibians From Fish Stocking
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
TheSacramento Superior Court has ordered the
California Department of Fish and Game into talks with Pacific Rivers
Council and the Center for Biological Diversity to develop interim
measures to limit harm to native species caused by fish stocking. The
intent is to minimize the adverse effect that hatchery-raised fish
inflict on sensitive native fish and amphibian species while the
Department prepares an Environmental Impact Report under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
"Interim measures
limiting stocking are needed to help save California's native fish and
frogs from extinction," said Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program
director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Fish and Game should
still be able to stock hatchery fish, but in places where they won't
harm native species."
The court ruled in May 2007
that fish stocking has "significant environmental impacts" on "aquatic
ecosystems" and "in particular, on native species of fish, amphibians
and insects, some of which are threatened or endangered." The court
ordered the Department to analyze and mitigate the impacts of the
stocking program in an Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, by the end
of 2008. The Department returned to court last month to ask for a
one-year extension, to January 2010, because the agency has made little
progress on the EIR.
To reduce the impact of the
Department's delay, the Center and Pacific Rivers Council asked for
interim restrictions on stocking, including not stocking in areas where
sensitive species such as California golden trout, Santa Ana sucker,
mountain yellow-legged frog, and Cascades frog, are known to be present
or where the Department has yet to survey. Judge Patrick Marlette
stated in a tentative order that such interim measures may be
necessary, but gave the Department until November 24th to negotiate an
agreement with the two organizations to determine where stocking could
take place pending completion of the EIR. If no agreement is reached,
the Judge indicated that he would consider limiting stocking only to
water bodies where no at-risk species occur on an interim basis, as
proposed by petitioners.
"The far reaching,
often disastrous consequences of stocking hatchery fish have been known
for decades," said Dr. Chris Frissell, Director of Science and
Conservation for Pacific Rivers Council. "It's far past time the
Department of Fish and Game completed a credible review of the
environmental impacts of its hatchery program and identified the steps
needed to limit its impacts to sensitive native species, as many other
states have done. Interim measures are merely a short-term safety net
to protect vulnerable species and waters until the State meets its
legal mandate to produce a report."
The required
California Environmental Quality Act environmental review will for the
first time provide the public and independent wildlife experts with an
opportunity to actively participate in how the Department can improve
management of the statewide fish-stocking program to better meet the
needs of both California's native species and recreational anglers.
Suspending the stocking of non-native fish in certain areas while the
review is being conducted will allow the Department to keep open as
many options regarding future management as possible by ensuring that
interim stocking does not further jeopardize any of California's
wildlife.
"The Department needs to consider the environmental impacts of its fish-stocking program before
it stocks more fish into aquatic strongholds," said Frissell, who has
published numerous scientific articles on the ecology of native fish
and wildlife species. "This is the only way that the Department can be
sure that it is not causing or contributing to the loss of the last
remaining populations of these native California animals and the
habitat they depend on."
Removing non-native fish
once they have been introduced is difficult, expensive and can cause
further damage to sensitive species. Many of the sensitive fish and
amphibian species are already so seriously depleted by past impacts,
including fish stocking, that even one more year of stocking could
cause irreversible loss of some populations.
"The
mountain yellow-legged frog has disappeared from more than 90% of its
former range in the Sierra Nevada, and introduced trout are an
important cause of this decline," stated research biologist Dr. Roland
Knapp. Likewise, unintended consequences of stocking nonnative trout
without needed precautions have seriously compromised and set back the
State's own conservation and recovery efforts for its imperiled native
golden and redband trout. "On a hopeful note, a cessation of stocking
and the removal of nonnative trout from key sites can allow the
recovery of mountain-yellow legged frogs and other native species."
The Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity are
represented by Deborah A. Sivas of the Environmental Law Clinic, Mills
Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School. For more information about the
lawsuit go to www.pacrivers.org or www.biologicaldiversity.org.
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) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Groups Sound Alarm Over Trump Plot to Install Nominees Without Senate Approval
"If you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
Dec 04, 2024
Dozens of civil rights and pro-democracy organizations teamed up Wednesday to express opposition to President-elect Donald Trump's push to use recess appointments to evade the Senate confirmation process for his political nominees, many of which have
glaring conflicts of interest.
The 70 groups—including People For the American Way, Public Citizen, the Constitutional Accountability Center, and the NAACP—sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that Senate confirmation procedures provide "crucial data" that helps lawmakers and the public "evaluate nominees' fitness for the important positions to which they are nominated."
"The framers of the Constitution included the requirement of Senate 'Advice and Consent' for high-ranking officers for a reason: The requirement can protect our freedom, just as the Bill of Rights does, by providing an indispensable check on presidential power," reads the new letter. "None of that would happen with recess appointments. The American people would be kept in the dark."
Since his victory in last month's election, Trump has publicly expressed his desire to bypass the often time-consuming Senate confirmation process via recess appointments, which are allowed under the Constitution and have been used in the past by presidents of both parties. The need for Senate confirmation is already proving to be a significant obstacle for the incoming administration: Trump's first attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz, withdrew amid seemingly insurmountable Senate opposition, and Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth appears to be on the ropes.
"Giving in to the president-elect's demand for recess appointments under the current circumstances would dramatically depart from how important positions have always been filled at the start of an administration," the groups wrote in their letter. "The confirmation process gathers important information that helps ensure that nominees who will be dangerous or ineffective for the American people are not confirmed and given great power, and that those who are confirmed meet at least a minimum standard of acceptability."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices, and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Scholars argue recess appointments were intended as a way for presidents to appoint officials to key posts under unusual circumstances, not as an exploit for presidents whose nominees run up against significant opposition.
The Senate could prevent recess appointments by refusing to officially go on recess and making use of pro forma sessions, but incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said that "we have to have all the options on the table" to push through Trump's nominees.
"We are not going to allow the Democrats to thwart the will of the American people in giving President Trump the people that he wants in those positions to implement his agenda," Thune said last month.
Trump has also previously threatened to invoke a never-before-used provision of the Constitution that he claims would allow him to force both chambers of Congress to adjourn, paving the way for recess appointments.
Conservative scholar Edward Whelan, a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, denounced that proposed route as a "cockamamie scheme" that would mean "eviscerating the Senate's advice-and-consent role."
Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way, said in a statement Wednesday that "if you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices," said Myrick, "and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Humanitarian Groups Dread 2025 Aid Shortfall as Trump Term Looms
"At a time when the richest people on Earth can go to space as a tourist," said one advocate, "it is incomprehensible that we as an international community are unable to find the necessary funding to provide displaced families with shelter."
Dec 04, 2024
As the United Nations humanitarian agency and its partner organizations launched the annual Global Humanitarian overview on Wednesday to appeal for aid ahead of 2025, officials shared sobering numbers: 305 million people in dire need of assistance, 190 million people the agencies believe they can help next year if funding demands are met, and $47 billion that's needed to help the people facing the greatest threats.
Tom Fletcher, under-secretary-general at the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said governments, particularly those in wealthy countries like the United States, face "a choice" as the world bears witness to starvation, increasingly frequent climate disasters, and other suffering in Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, and elsewhere.
"We can respond to these numbers with generosity, with compassion, with genuine solidarity for those in the most dire need on the planet—or we can carry on," said Fletcher at a news briefing. "We can choose to leave them alone to face these crises. We can choose to let them down."
Fletcher and other humanitarian leaders noted that as of last month, just 43% of the $50 billion funding appeal made for 2024 had been met.
Food assistance in Syria has been cut by 80% as a result of the large funding gap, while protection services in Myanmar and water and sanitation aid in Yemen have also been reduced.
Fletcher said that with another major funding shortfall expected in 2025, OCHA and its partners are expecting to be forced to make "ruthless" decisions to direct aid to those most in need—likely leaving out 115 million people.
Fears that funding needs will be far from met in 2025 are arising partially from the election last month of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who pursued significant cuts during his first term to agencies including the U.N. Population Fund, UNAIDS, the World Health Organization, and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
"America is very much on our minds at the moment, we're facing the election of a number of governments who will be more questioning of what the United Nations does and less ideologically supportive of this humanitarian effort that we've laid out in this report," said Fletcher. "But it's our job to frame the arguments in the right way to land and not to give up. And so I'll head to Washington. I'll spend a lot of time in Washington, I imagine, over the next few months, engaging with the new administration, making the case to them, just as I'll spend a lot of time in other capitals where people might be skeptical about the work that we are doing."
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) Secretary-General Jan Egeland, who led OCHA for three years, toldAl Jazeera that U.S. funding under the Trump administration is "a tremendous question mark."
"Should the U.S. administration cut its humanitarian funding, it could be more complex to fill the gap of growing needs," said Egeland.
The U.S. is the largest humanitarian donor in the world, contributing $10 billion last year—but its donations pale in comparison to its military spending, which was budgeted at more than $841 billion in 2024, and the earnings of its top corporations.
As NRC noted, Facebook parent company Meta earned $47.4 billion—about the same amount humanitarian agencies are requesting this year—before income taxes in 2023.
Without naming billionaire SpaceX CEO Elon Musk—a Trump ally and megadonor who's expected to have a role in his new administration—Camilla Waszink, director of partnership and policy at NRC, called out the widening gap between the world's richest people and those in desperate need of humanitarian assistance.
"At a time when the richest people on Earth can go to space as a tourist and trillions of U.S. dollars are used annually on global military expenditure, it is incomprehensible that we as an international community are unable to find the necessary funding to provide displaced families with shelter and prevent children from dying of hunger," said Waszink. "There is an urgent need for a revamp of global solidarity. Existing donor countries must ensure assistance keeps pace with needs and inflation, and emerging economies should compete to become among the most generous donors in the same way they compete to host expensive international sports events."
"It is devastating to know that millions of people in need will not receive necessary assistance next year because of the growing lack of funding for the humanitarian response. With a record number of conflicts ongoing, donors are cutting aid budgets that displaced and conflict-affected people rely on to survive," she added. "Conflicts and a blatant disregard for protection of civilians are driving massive humanitarian needs. It is essential that donors provide funding, but they must also invest in ending conflicts, bringing violations to a halt and preventing new needs from developing."
Fletcher noted that in addition to conflicts like Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the civil war in Sudan, the climate crisis is a major driver of growing humanitarian needs.
"2024 will be the hottest year on record," said Fletcher. "Presumably 2025 will then be the hottest year on record. Floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires affecting millions. We're on the brink of surpassing the 1.5°C in warming, and that will hit hardest in the countries that have actually contributed least to climate change. It wipes out food systems. It wipes out livelihoods, it forces communities to move from their homes and land. Drought has caused 65% of agricultural economic damage over the last 15 years, worsening food insecurity."
In conflict zones and in regions affected by the climate emergency, said Fletcher, "it's our mission to do more."
"My people are desperate to get out there and deliver because they really are on the frontline," he said. "They can see what is needed, but we need these resources. That's our call to action. And we also need the world to do more. Those with power to do more—to challenge this era of impunity and to challenge this era of indifference."
Keep ReadingShow Less
CEO of UnitedHealthcare—Largest Private Insurer in US—Killed in Apparent Targeted Attack
"This does not appear to be a random act of violence," according to the police commissioner.
Dec 04, 2024
The CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was fatally shot early Wednesday outside of a hotel in midtown Manhattan.
During a press conference, New York Police Department Commissioner Jessica Tisch said that Thompson was killed "in what appears, at this early stage in our investigation, to be a brazen, targeted attack. This does not appear to be a random act of violence." Thompson was taken to Mount Sinai West hospital before being pronounced dead.
Thompson, 50, was believed to be on his way to attend the company's annual investor conference, which was set to take place at the New York Hilton Hotel. Thompson, according to his LinkedIn page, has worked for UnitedHealth Group for 20 years and was named CEO of UnitedHealthcare in April 2021. He was a resident of Minnesota, according to the NYPD.
According to the NYPD, it appears the suspect was "lying in wait for several minutes" before approaching Thompson from behind and firing and striking Thompson multiple times. "Many people passed the suspect, but he appeared to wait for his intended target," said the commissioner.
The shooter, who a detective with the NYPD said appears to be male, then fled the scene, first on foot, and then on an e-bike, and was last seen in Central Park early this morning. There is currently a search underway for the shooter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular