July, 08 2009, 11:15am EDT
![Center for Biological Diversity](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012680/origin.jpg)
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
Condor Experts Condemn Proposed Tejon Ranch Development
Proposed “Conservation” Plan Will Hurt Endangered California Condors
LOS ANGELES
A group of
esteemed condor biologists, including former leaders and members of the Fish and
Wildlife Service's condor research team and federal condor recovery team, has
weighed in on the controversial plan to develop Tejon Ranch, broadly
condemning Tejon's development proposal and its associated proposed Habitat
Conservation Plan.
The scientists, including some of
the most important names in the history of the conservation of the California
condor, called for the rejection of Tejon's request for a permit to harm
critically endangered condors.
"This remarkable group of experts
who have devoted years of their lives to helping bringing the condor back from
the brink of extinction have written a damning report on Tejon's massive sprawl
development plans," said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center for
Biological Diversity. "The consensus among independent biologists is that
Tejon's supposed conservation plan fails to protect condors and their proposed
developments would significantly harm the recovery of the
species."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is currently considering Tejon's application for a Tehachapi Upland
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, which would include a "take" permit for
27 endangered, threatened, or rare species on Tejon Ranch. The permits are
essential to Tejon's plans to develop Tejon Mountain Village, the controversial
luxury-home subdivision planned within the heart of designated critical habitat
for the California condor.
"The condor is being brought back
literally from the brink of extinction through extreme intervention and at a
cost of millions of dollars in public and private funds," said Miller. "Given
the importance of Tejon Ranch for the recovery of condors, it is inappropriate
and legally indefensible that condors would be considered for any kind of "take"
under this permit. The Conservation Plan is fatally flawed and should be
withdrawn."
The centerpiece of Tejon's condor
"Conservation Plan" is a supposed mitigation for development impacts of
establishing artificial food stations to provide carcasses for scavenging
condors. Replacing natural foraging grounds with artificial feeding stations
would effectively relegate condors to outdoor zoo species, which the experts
describe as "neither necessary nor desirable." The condor biologists reject this
mitigation as inconsistent with the recovery of condors, since feeding stations
adversely affect condor foraging behavior and movements and result in
detrimental behaviors such as microtrash ingestion and human
habituation.
The scientists note that the
developments would: harm condors by significantly reducing the amount of
high-quality foraging habitat; end hunting in current condor foraging areas,
which would reduce natural food supplies; inhibit condor use of the area through
effects of urbanization; and possibly alter condor movement patterns. The
scientists conclude that the proposed developments would "appreciably reduce the
likelihood of recovery of the California condor and adversely modify critical
habitat," and represent a "major threat to recovery of the
species."
Tejon Ranch, and specifically the
proposed Tejon Mountain Village area,
is important condor critical
habitat because of (1) its abundant food supply of carrion; (2) strong
and reliable winds essential for efficient condor foraging movement; (3) healthy
populations of other scavengers that help condors locate food; (4) the
geographic position of the ranch at a central crossroads for condor movements
between other important condor use areas; (5) the area's long history of
isolation from detrimental human influences associated with urbanization; and
(6) the local availability of suitable overnight roosting
locations.
Despite condor movement in the past
decade being strongly influenced by the operation of feeding stations away from
Tejon Ranch near condor release areas, many of the released birds have
rediscovered and reoccupied Tejon. The Tejon Mountain Village area has been one of the most heavily
used portions of condor critical habitat in recent years, with the Southern California population heavily using Tejon in 2008
and 2009 for foraging. However, Tejon's flawed Conservation Plan excludes much
of this important critical habitat for condors from consideration for protection
in order to satisfy its development desires.
The Center for Biological Diversity
also submitted comments
yesterday on the inadequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Conservation Plan and its violations of the Endangered Species Act and National
Environmental Protection Act with respect to impacts on
condors.
In 1997, as the Fish and Wildlife
Service began releasing captive-reared California condors to the wild, Tejon Ranch sued the
Service in an attempt to halt the release of California condors near Tejon Ranch, curtail
the condor recovery program, and relegate the condors to a special status
without protection under the Endangered Species Act. Although the lawsuit was
arguably meritless, it was minimally defended by the government, which instead
settled the case for what is believed to be a sweetheart deal that has resulted
in the current plan and take permit application.
The scientists sending the letter
are:
David A. Clendenen: condor field
biologist, Condor Research Center (1982-1994); lead biologist for USFWS in
charge of condor field studies (1994-1997); Condor Recovery Team member
(1995-2000).
Janet A. Hamber: condor biologist at
the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History (1976-present); cooperator with
USFWS in condor nesting and telemetry studies (1980-present); archivist and
manager of Condor Information System (1988-present).
Dr. Allen Mee: post-doctoral fellow
for the Zoological Society of San Diego (2001-2006); researcher on condor
breeding in California and Arizona; convener of condor symposium at AOU 2005
conference, Santa Barbara; senior editor of California Condors in the 21st
Century (2007); currently manager of White-tailed Sea Eagle Reintroduction
Program in Ireland.
Dr. Vicky J. Meretsky: field
biologist in charge of telemetry interpretations, Condor Research Center
(1984-1986); senior author of Range, Use andMovements of California
Condors (1992); senior author of Demography ofthe California
Condor (2000); associate professor of environmental science, adjunct
appointment to the Department of Biology and affiliated faculty at the Maurer
School of Law, Indiana University (1997-present).
Bruce K. Palmer: former U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service coordinator for the California Condor Recovery Program
(2000-2004); worked on the development of components of the Tehachapi
Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
Anthony Prieto: co-founder of hunter
organization Project Gutpile (1999-present).
Fred C. Sibley: former field leader
of condor research program for USFWS (1966-1969); author of Effects of the
Sespe Creek Project on the California Condor (1969).
Dr. Noel F.R. Snyder: former field
leader of condor research program for USFWS (1980-1986); former member of Condor
Recovery Team (1980-1986); senior author of The California Condor, a saga of
natural historyand conservation (2000); senior author of
Introduction to the CaliforniaCondor (2005); recipient of William
Brewster Award of American Ornithologists' Union for research and conservation
work with the California Condor and Puerto Rican Parrot,
1989.
William D. Toone: Condor Recovery
Team member (1986-1992); Curator of Birds, Zoological Society of San Diego
(1983-1993); Director of Applied Conservation, Zoological Society of San Diego
(1993-2003); Founding trustee and Executive Director of the ECOLIFE foundation
(2003-present).
For more information on protecting
Tejon Ranch see www.savetejonranch.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
'Tragic Outcome' for Gig Workers as California Supreme Court Hands Win to Uber, DoorDash
"Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers," the case plaintiff said.
Jul 25, 2024
Labor advocates on Thursday decried a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a lower court's affirmation of a state ballot measure allowing app-based ride and delivery companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors, limiting their worker rights.
The court's seven justices ruled unanimously in Castellanos v. State of California that Proposition 22, which was approved by 58% of California voters in 2020, complies with the state constitution. Prop 22—which was overturned in 2021 by an Alameda County Superior Court judge in 2021—was upheld in March 2023 by the state's 1st District Court of Appeals.
The business models of app-based companies including DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, and Uber rely upon minimizing frontline worker compensation by categorizing drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Independent contractors are not entitled to unemployment insurance, health insurance, or compensation for business expenses.
There are approximately 1.4 million app-based gig workers in California, according to industry estimates.
While DoorDash hailed Thursday's ruling as "not only a victory for Dashers, but also for democracy itself," gig worker advocates condemned the decision.
"Over the last three years, gig workers across California have experienced firsthand that Prop 22 is nothing more than a bait-and-switch meant to enrich global corporations at the expense of the Black, brown, and immigrant workers who power their earnings," plaintiff Hector Castellanos, who drives for Uber and Lyft, said in a statement.
"Prop 22 has allowed gig companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to deprive us of a living wage, access to workers compensation, paid sick leave, and meaningful healthcare coverage," Castellanos added. "Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers."
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, said that "we are deeply disappointed that the state Supreme Court has allowed tech corporations to buy their way out of basic labor laws despite Proposition 22's inconsistencies with our state constitution."
"These companies have upended our social contract, forcing workers and the public to take on the inherent risk created by this work, while they profit," she continued. "A.B. 5 granted virtually all California workers the right to be paid for all hours worked, health and safety standards, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and the right to organize."
"Rideshare and delivery drivers deserve those rights as well," Gonzalez stressed.
The Gig Workers Rising campaign said on social media that "Uber and other app corporations spent $220 million to buy this law, and they did it by tricking Californians."
Prop 22's passage in November 2020 with nearly 59% of the vote was the culmination of what was by far the most expensive ballot measure in California history. App-based companies and their backers outspent labor and progressive groups by more than 10 to 1, with proponents pouring a staggering $204.5 million into the "yes" campaign's coffers against just $19 million for the "no" side.
"Voters were told the initiative would provide us with 'historic new benefits' and guaranteed earnings," said Gig Workers Rising. "But since it went into effect, drivers have seen our pay go down, learned the benefits are a sham, and have to accept unsafe rides because of the constant threat of being 'deactivated,' kicked off the app with little explanation or warning."
"If Uber really cared about good benefits and fair wages, it could make that happen tomorrow," the campaign added. "Instead, it has shown it would rather slash pay, bamboozle voters, and put drivers' lives and livelihoods in danger—all while promising $7 billion in stock buybacks to banks and billionaires."
Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who focuses on labor and inequality, toldCalMatters that Thursday's ruling was "a really tragic outcome," but "it's not the end of the road."
Dubal's sentiment was echoed by some California state legislators, who said the ruling presents an opportunity to act.
"While this decision is frustrating, it must also be motivating," said state Senate Labor Committee Chair Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-28). "I'm more determined than ever to ensure that all workers—including our diverse and Black, Indigenous, and people of color-led gig workforce—have the basic protections of workers compensation, paid sick leave, family leave, disability insurance, and the right to form a union."
Prop 22 has served as a template for lawmakers in other states seeking to deny or limit basic worker rights, benefits, and protections.
In Massachusetts, app-based companies have been fighting for years to get a measure to classify drivers as contractors on the state ballot. In 2022, Lyft made the largest political donation in state history—$14.4 million—to a coalition funding one such proposal.
Last month, Uber and Lyft reached an agreement with the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, to pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 2020. As part of the deal, the companies also agreed to increase driver pay and provide paid sick leave, accident insurance, and some health benefits. The agreement does not address how app-based gig workers should be classified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Young Voters Tell Kamala Harris to 'Fight for Our Future'
"This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."
Jul 25, 2024
Four youth-led groups on Thursday urged Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to "fight for our future" by pursuing a policy agenda the coalition unveiled in a March letter to U.S. President Joe Biden.
It's been less than a week since Biden left the race and endorsed Harris, who is expected to face former Republican Donald Trump and his running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), in the November election. Since then, she's racked up endorsements from Democratic members of Congress and progressive groups focused on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.
March for Our Lives, which was launched after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, honored Harris with the group's first-ever endorsement on Wednesday, calling her "the right person to stand up for us and fight for the country we deserve."
"To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters."
The gun violence prevention organization is part of the youth-led coalition behind the new letter, which also includes the climate-focused Sunrise Movement; Gen-Z for Change, which advocates on a range of issues; and the national immigrant network United We Dream Action.
"You have an urgent and important task. To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters," the coalition told Harris on Thursday, noting that she sought the Democratic nomination during the last cycle. "You should build on your 2020 campaign platform where you put forward a strong vision to make the economy work for everyday people and ensure a livable future for us all."
The groups urged Harris to support the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. They pushed her to expand pathways to citizenship, keep families together, end fossil fuel subsidies, and create good, union jobs. They also called on her to prioritize gun violence prevention and investments in public health solutions and green, affordable housing.
"Democrats are at a critical crossroads with young people," the coalition wrote to Harris on Thursday. "Polls showed Biden and Trump neck-and-neck among young voters."
ANew York Times/Siena College poll conducted July 22-24 shows Trump leading Harris 48% to 47% among likely voters and 48% to 46% among registered voters—differences that fall within the margin of error.
Forbesnoted Thursday that "Democrats are far more enthusiastic about Harris than they were Biden, the Times/Siena survey found, with nearly 80% of voters who lean Democrat saying they would like Harris to be the nominee, compared to 48% of Democrats who said the same about Biden three weeks ago."
The outlet also pointed to two other polls conducted by Morning Consult and Reuters/Ipsos since Biden dropped out, which both show Harris with a narrow lead over Trump.
"You have an opportunity to win the youth vote by turning the page and differentiating yourself from Biden policies that are deeply unpopular with us, such as approving new oil and gas projects, denying people their right to seek refuge and asylum, and funding the Israeli government's killing of civilians in Gaza," the youth coalition highlighted Thursday. "You must speak to the economic pain young people are facing from crushing student debt and skyrocketing housing and food prices."
Looking beyond November, the groups told Harris—who could be the first Black woman and person of Asian descent elected to the country's highest office—that "you could be a historic president. Not just because of who you are, but what you can accomplish."
"Young people are energized and ready to organize against fascism and for the future we deserve," they concluded. "This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Video Game Actors Strike for AI Protections
"The video game industry generates billions of dollars in profit annually," said one union leader. "The driving force behind that success is the creative people who design and create those games."
Jul 25, 2024
After nearly two years of negotiations with video game giants and no deal that would protect performers from artificial intelligence, unionized voice and motion capture actors who work in video game development announced Thursday that they will go on strike starting at 12:01 am on Friday, July 26.
The performers are represented by Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), which last year won a contract for TV and film actors that included "unprecedented provisions for consent and compensation that will protect members from the threat of AI," after the union went on strike for four months.
The union has been negotiating on behalf of video game actors with major production companies including Disney Character Voices Inc., Activision Productions Inc., and WB Games Inc., and has won concessions over wages and job safety—but "AI protections remain the sticking point," said SAG-AFTRA on Thursday as the impending strike was announced.
Unionized actors want protections that would stop video game companies from training AI to replicate actors' voices or likeness without their consent and without compensating them.
"The video game industry generates billions of dollars in profit annually," said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director and chief negotiator for SAG-AFTRA. "The driving force behind that success is the creative people who design and create those games. That includes the SAG-AFTRA members who bring memorable and beloved game characters to life, and they deserve and demand the same fundamental protections as performers in film, television, streaming, and music: fair compensation and the right of informed consent for the AI use of their faces, voices, and bodies."
"Frankly, it's stunning that these video game studios haven't learned anything from the lessons of last year—that our members can and will stand up and demand fair and equitable treatment with respect to AI, and the public supports us in that," he added.
Sarah Elmaleh, negotiating committee chair for the union's interactive media agreement, said the negotiations have shown the companies "are not interested in fair, reasonable AI protections, but rather flagrant exploitation."
"We look forward to collaborating with teams on our interim and independent contracts, which provide AI transparency, consent, and compensation to all performers, and to continuing to negotiate in good faith with this bargaining group when they are ready to join us in the world we all deserve," said Elmaleh.
The unionized actors voted in favor of the strike authorization with a 98.32% yes vote, said SAG-AFTRA.
The strike was announced as more than 500 workers who help develop the popular World of Warcraft video game franchise voted to join the Communications Workers of America (CWA), with the games publisher, Blizzard Entertainment, recognizing the bargaining unit.
CWA noted that the workers' journey to union representation began with a walkout in 2021 at Activision Blizzard, which was later bought by Microsoft, over sexual harassment and discrimination.
"What we've accomplished at World of Warcraft is just the beginning," Eric Lanham, a World of Warcraft test analyst, said in a statement. "We know that when workers have a protected voice, it's a win-win for employee standards, the studio, and World of Warcraft fans looking for the best gaming experience."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular