January, 25 2010, 12:22pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
California Endangered Species Act Protection Sought to Save Mountain Yellow-legged Frog From Exotic Trout, Habitat Destruction, and Disease
SAN FRANCISCO
The Center for Biological Diversity
today petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to list all populations
of the highly imperiled mountain yellow-legged frog as endangered under the
California Endangered Species Act. Mountain yellow-legged frogs
inhabit high-elevation lakes, ponds, and streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and Transverse Ranges of California and are on a rapid trend to
extinction. Their rapid decline is due to predation by
introduced trout, spread of diseases
that may be exacerbated by exposure to pesticides, and habitat alterations
caused by climate change, drought, and livestock
grazing.
"Once the most
abundant frog in the high Sierra, the mountain yellow-legged frog now barely
clings to survival," said Jeff
Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. "The
mountain yellow-legged frog needs the protections of the California
Endangered Species Act to have any chance at recovery."
Although mountain yellow-legged
frogs throughout California should be protected
under the federal Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
only listed the Southern California population
as endangered. In response to a 2000 petition filed by the Center for Biological
Diversity, the Service determined that Sierra
Nevada mountain yellow-legged frogs also warrant federal listing as
endangered, but that such listing is precluded by actions to list other species.
As a fallback the agency placed the Sierra population on the candidate list,
which does not confer federal protection. The average time on the waiting list
for candidate species is 17 years, and many animals and plants have gone extinct
while languishing on this list.
"Continued delay of federal
protection for all mountain yellow-legged frog populations is placing this
unique California amphibian at risk of extinction,"
said Miller. "Without federal action, this frog needs protection under the
California Endangered Species Act."
Only a few decades ago, it was
difficult to walk around many of the Sierra's alpine lakes without tripping over
diminutive mountain yellow-legged frogs, known as "mountain gnomes." These hardy
survivors of freezing Sierra winters are vulnerable to a host of modern threats
that have driven the species to the brink of extinction. Surveys since 1995 at
225 historic frog localities show extinction of 93 percent of the northern and
central Sierra populations and 95 percent of southern
populations.
This month the California Department
of Fish and Game released a final environmental impact report on the impacts of
stocking of hatchery fish on mountain yellow-legged frogs and other imperiled
species, which unfortunately failed to adopt sufficient mitigation to protect
the species from the impacts of past and ongoing fish
stocking.
Background
Mountain yellow-legged frogs are
adapted to high-elevation habitats without aquatic predators. Widespread
stocking of nonnative trout in high-elevation Sierra lakes by the California
Department of Fish and Game has been the primary cause of decline for the
species. Introduced trout prey on tadpoles and juvenile frogs and change the
food web of the aquatic ecosystems frogs depend upon. Since 2000, the National
Park Service and U.S. Forest Service have begun removing nonnative trout from
some high Sierra lakes on federal lands in an attempt to restore yellow-legged
frog populations.
In 2006 the Center for Biological
Diversity filed suit against Fish and Game for failing to complete an
environmental review of the impacts of fish stocking on sensitive aquatic
species; in 2007 a court ordered the state
agency to conduct a public review of the stocking program's impacts. In 2008
Fish and Game agreed to interim restrictions prohibiting stocking trout in water
bodies with species sensitive to nonnative fish. Although the state has taken
steps to reduce trout stocking in areas with yellow-legged frogs, stocked trout
continue to harm frog populations and limit recovery. Permanent protection and
management decisions to stop stocking and remove trout in key frog habitats are
necessary to reduce trout predation of mountain yellow-legged
frogs.
Recent research has linked
pesticides that drift from agricultural areas in the Central Valley to declines
of native amphibians in the Sierra Nevada. Pesticides and other pollutants can
directly kill frogs and also act as environmental stressors that render
amphibians more susceptible to diseases, including a chytrid fungus that has
recently ravaged many yellow-legged frog populations.
Mismanagement of national forest lands has degraded frog habitat where livestock
grazing, logging, off-road vehicles, and recreational
activity are allowed in frog habitat. Rapid climate change has brought
warmer temperatures, decreases in runoff, shifts in winter precipitation
in the Sierra from snow to rain, and habitat changes that are rendering frog
populations more vulnerable to drought-related extinction
events.
The mountain yellow-legged frog was
recently re-described by scientists as two distinct species: the southern
mountain-yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), which occurs in the southern Sierra and
Transverse Ranges of Southern California; and the Sierra Nevada mountain
yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae), in the central and northern
Sierra.
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
Sanders Champions Those Fighting Back Against Water-Sucking, Energy-Draining, Cost-Boosting Data Centers
Dec 10, 2025
Americans who are resisting the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers in their communities are up against local law enforcement and the Trump administration, which is seeking to compel cities and towns to host the massive facilities without residents' input.
On Wednesday, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged AI data center opponents to keep up the pressure on local, state, and federal leaders, warning that the rapid expansion of the multi-billion-dollar behemoths in places like northern Virginia, Wisconsin, and Michigan is set to benefit "oligarchs," while working people pay "with higher water and electric bills."
"Americans must fight back against billionaires who put profits over people," said the senator.
In a video posted on the social media platform X, Sanders pointed to two major AI projects—a $165 billion data center being built in Abilene, Texas by OpenAI and Oracle and one being constructed in Louisiana by Meta.
The centers are projected to use as much electricity as 750,000 homes and 1.2 million homes, respectively, and Meta's project will be "the size of Manhattan."
Hundreds gathered in Abilene in October for a "No Kings" protest where one local Democratic political candidate spoke out against "billion-dollar corporations like Oracle" and others "moving into our rural communities."
"They’re exploiting them for all of their resources, and they are creating a surveillance state,” said Riley Rodriguez, a candidate for Texas state Senate District 28.
In Holly Ridge, Lousiana, the construction of the world's largest data center has brought thousands of dump trucks and 18-wheelers driving through town on a daily basis, causing crashes to rise 600% and forcing a local school to shut down its playground due to safety concerns.
And people in communities across the US know the construction of massive data centers are only the beginning of their troubles, as electricity bills have surged this year in areas like northern Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio, which have a high concentration of the facilities.
The centers are also projected to use the same amount of water as 18.5 million homes normally, according to a letter signed by more than 200 environmental justice groups this week.
And in a survey of Pennsylvanians last week, Emerson College found 55% of respondents believed the expansion of AI will decrease the number of jobs available in their current industry. Sanders released an analysis in October showing that corporations including Amazon, Walmart, and UnitedHealth Group are already openly planning to slash jobs by shifting operations to AI.
In his video on Wednesday, Sanders applauded residents who have spoken out against the encroachment of Big Tech firms in their towns and cities.
"In community after community, Americans are fighting back against the data centers being built by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world," said Sanders. "They are opposing the destruction of their local environment, soaring electric bills, and the diversion of scarce water supplies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Protest in Oslo Denounces Nobel Peace Prize for Right-Wing Machado
"No peace prize for warmongers," said one of the banners displayed by demonstrators, who derided Machado's support for President Donald Trump's regime change push in Venezuela.
Dec 10, 2025
As President Donald Trump issued new threats of a possible ground invasion in Venezuela, protesters gathered outside the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo on Tuesday to protest the awarding of the prestigious peace prize to right-wing opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, whom they described as an ally to US regime change efforts.
“This year’s Nobel Prize winner has not distanced herself from the interventions and the attacks we are seeing in the Caribbean, and we are stating that this clearly breaks with Alfred Nobel’s will," said Lina Alvarez Reyes, the information adviser for the Norwegian Solidarity Committee for Latin America, one of the groups that organized the protests.
Machado's daughter delivered a speech accepting the award on her behalf on Wednesday. The 58-year-old engineer was unable to attend the ceremony in person due to a decade-long travel ban imposed by Venezuelan authorities under the government of President Nicolás Maduro.
Via her daughter, Machado said that receiving the award "reminds the world that democracy is essential to peace... And more than anything, what we Venezuelans can offer the world is the lesson forged through this long and difficult journey: that to have a democracy, we must be willing to fight for freedom."
But the protesters who gathered outside the previous day argue that Machado—who dedicated her acceptance of the award in part to Trump and has reportedly worked behind the scenes to pressure Washington to ramp up military and financial pressure on Venezuela—is not a beacon of democracy, but a tool of imperialist control.
As Venezuelan-American activist Michelle Ellner wrote in Common Dreams in October after Machado received the award:
She worked hand in hand with Washington to justify regime change, using her platform to demand foreign military intervention to “liberate” Venezuela through force.
She cheered on Donald Trump’s threats of invasion and his naval deployments in the Caribbean, a show of force that risks igniting regional war under the pretext of “combating narco-trafficking.” While Trump sent warships and froze assets, Machado stood ready to serve as his local proxy, promising to deliver Venezuela’s sovereignty on a silver platter.
She pushed for the US sanctions that strangled the economy, knowing exactly who would pay the price: the poor, the sick, the working class.
The protesters outside the Nobel Institute on Tuesday felt similarly: "No peace prize for warmongers," read one banner. "US hands off Latin America," read another.
The protest came on the same day Trump told reporters that an attack on the mainland of Venezuela was coming soon: “We’re gonna hit ‘em on land very soon, too,” the president said after months of extrajudicial bombings of vessels in the Caribbean that the administration has alleged with scant evidence are carrying drugs.
On the same day that Machado received the award in absentia, US warplanes were seen circling over the Gulf of Venezuela. Later, in what Bloomberg described as a "serious escalation," the US seized an oil tanker off the nation's coast.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Princeton Experts Speak Out Against Trump Boat Strikes as 'Illegal' and Destabilizing 'Murders'
"Deploying an aircraft carrier and US Southern Command assets to destroy small yolas and wooden boats is not only unlawful, it is an absurd escalation," said one scholar.
Dec 10, 2025
Multiple scholars at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs on Wednesday spoke out against the Trump administration's campaign of bombing suspected drug boats, with one going so far as to call them acts of murder.
Eduardo Bhatia, a visiting professor and lecturer in public and international affairs at Princeton, argued that it was "unequivocal" that the attacks on on purported drug boats are illegal.
"They violate established maritime law requiring interdiction and arrest before the use of lethal force, and they represent a grossly disproportionate response by the US," stressed Bhatia, the former president of the Senate of Puerto Rico. "Deploying an aircraft carrier and US Southern Command assets to destroy small yolas and wooden boats is not only unlawful, it is an absurd escalation that undermines regional security and diplomatic stability."
Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Program in Law and Public Policy at Princeton, said that she has been talking with "military operations lawyers, international law experts, national security legal scholars," and other experts, and so far has found none who believe the administration's boat attacks are legal.
Pearlstein added that the illegal strikes are "a symptom of the much deeper problem created by the purging of career lawyers on the front end, and the tacit promise of presidential pardons on the back end," the result of which is that "the rule of law loses its deterrent effect."
Visiting professor Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that it was not right to describe the administration's actions as war crimes given that a war, by definition, "requires a level of sustained hostilities between two organized forces that is not present with the drug cartels."
Rather, Roth believes that the administration's policy should be classified as straight-up murder.
"These killings are still murders," he emphasized. "Drug trafficking is a serious crime, but the appropriate response is to interdict the boats and arrest the occupants for prosecution. The rules governing law enforcement prohibit lethal force except as a last resort to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, which the boats do not present."
International affairs professor Jacob N. Shapiro pointed to the past failures in the US "War on Drugs," and predicted more of the same from Trump's boat-bombing spree.
"In 1986, President Ronald Reagan announced the 'War on Drugs,' which included using the Coast Guard and military to essentially shut down shipment through the Caribbean," Shapiro noted. "The goal was to reduce supply, raise prices, and thereby lower use. Cocaine prices in the US dropped precipitously from 1986 through 1989, and then dropped slowly through 2006. Traffickers moved from air and sea to land routes. That policy did not work, it's unclear why this time will be different."
The scholars' denunciation of the boat strikes came on the same day that the US seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in yet another escalatory act of aggression intended to put further economic pressure on the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


