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
National
Marine Fisheries Service today finalized Endangered Species Act
regulations to
protect the southern population of green sturgeon from "take" and other
harmful
activities. The take prohibitions make it unlawful to kill or harm
southern
green sturgeon and could require changes in operations of dams and water
diversions, commercial and recreational fisheries, dredging operations,
and
pesticide applications to protect the green sturgeon, an ancient and
imperiled
migratory fish species that has survived since the Jurassic
era.
"The
southern
green sturgeon population has fallen to precariously low numbers, and
these
regulations should help protect the few remaining spawning sturgeon from
the
Sacramento River from harm by water projects,
overfishing, and pesticides," said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate
with the
Center for Biological Diversity.
The new regulations,
created under
section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, prohibit all unauthorized
"take" of
southern green sturgeon throughout their spawning and rearing range in
the
Sacramento, Feather, and lower Yuba rivers, as
well as in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay.
Because of the similarity of
appearance between southern and northern green sturgeon, any green
sturgeon in
marine environments, including the mouths of coastal rivers, estuaries,
and
marine waters in California, Oregon, and Washington, are protected from
take.
The
green
sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, is one of the most ancient fish
species
in the world, remaining unchanged in appearance since it first emerged
200
million years ago. Green sturgeon are among the largest and
longest-living fish
species found in freshwater, living for as long as 70 years, reaching
7.5 feet
in length, and weighing as much as to 350 pounds. Sturgeon have a prehistoric appearance, with a skeleton
consisting of mostly cartilage and rows of bony plates for scales. They
have
snouts like shovels and mouths like vacuum cleaners that are used to
siphon
shrimp and other food from sandy depths.
For
more
information about the
green sturgeon, visit:
www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/fish/North_American_green_sturgeon/index.html
Background
In
response to
a 2001 Center listing petition and a subsequent lawsuit, the Fisheries
Service
in 2006 listed the southern green sturgeon population - fish in the San
Francisco Bay and Delta that spawn in the Sacramento River basin, but
migrate
along much of the west coast from Mexico to Canada - as a threatened
species
under the Endangered Species Act. In 2009, the Fisheries Service
designated
broad areas of river, estuarine, bay, and coastal marine habitats in
California, Oregon, and
Washington as
critical habitat for the southern population of green
sturgeon.
Killing, injuring,
harassing,
hunting, capturing, or collecting green sturgeon without a federal
permit under
the Endangered Species Act are now activities considered "take,'' as is
harm
from significant habitat modification or degradation that impairs
sturgeon
breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. The 4(d)
rule
discusses specific activities likely to take or harm green sturgeon,
including
commercial and recreational fisheries, habitat-altering activities,
impeded
migration from dams and water diversions, entrainment during water
diversions or
dredging, application of pesticides and pollutants, and nonnative
species
introductions. Exemptions to the 4(d) rule allow for continued tribal
fisheries,
scientific research and monitoring
activities, emergency rescue
and salvage activities, and habitat restoration projects that are not
considered
to threaten green sturgeon.
In order to comply with the
4(d)
rule, state commercial and recreational fisheries must submit fisheries
management and evaluation plans to the
federal Fisheries Service that prohibit retention of green sturgeon
(zero
bag limit), with measures to minimize incidental take of sturgeon. In
2007,
California and Washington revised fishing regulations to prohibit
retention of green sturgeon, and Oregon
prohibited retention of green sturgeon in lower Columbia
River recreational fisheries. For commercial fisheries, the
retention of green sturgeon has been prohibited in the Columbia River
since 2006
and statewide in Washington since 2007. California has prohibited
commercial fishing for sturgeon since 1917. American Indian fisheries
for green
sturgeon will be required to develop tribal resource-management plans
for
sturgeon. The only tribal take of southern green sturgeon is as bycatch
in
salmon and white sturgeon fisheries conducted by the Quinault tribe in
coastal
Washington
waters. In 2006, the Quinault tribe implemented zero retention of green
sturgeon
for their Grays Harbor fishery. The Yurok and
Hoopa tribes harvest green sturgeon in the Klamath River in California,
but most fish
are believed to be from the northern population, which is not federally
protected. Overall, the take of green sturgeon in tribal fisheries has
been low
compared to that of nontribal fisheries.
Like
salmon,
sturgeon are anadromous, migrating to the ocean and returning to
freshwater to
spawn. Only three known green sturgeon spawning grounds remain, in the
Sacramento and Klamath rivers in California and the Rogue River in
Oregon. Between four and
seven spawning populations have already been eliminated in California
and Oregon. The estimated abundance of green
sturgeon in the Sacramento River plummeted by 95 percent between
2001 and
2006, with only an estimated 50 pairs of spawning fish remaining. Severe declines in both green and white sturgeon
parallel the collapse of other fish species in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin
Delta, such as delta smelt, longfin
smelt,
Sacramento splittail, threadfin shad, and striped bass, due to the
combined
effects of Delta water diversions and exports, pesticides and pollution,
and
introduced species.
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"Universal healthcare, housing, and anti-poverty programs are considered more 'radical' on Fox News than mass murder," said one healthcare advocate.
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade is facing calls to resign after suggesting earlier this week that the state should execute homeless people who decline help during a live broadcast.
Kilmeade made the comments during a Wednesday episode of Fox & Friends, during which the panel discussed the recent shocking video of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska aboard a train in Charlotte, North Carolina, by a mentally ill homeless man, which has ignited a flurry of often racist vitriol on the right toward Black Americans and homeless people.
Another of the hosts, Lawrence Jones, claimed that the government has "given billions of dollars to mental health, to the homeless population," but that "a lot of them don't want to take the programs, a lot of them don't want to get the help that is necessary."
Jones continued: "You can't give them a choice. Either you take the resources that we're going to give you, or you decide that you're going to be locked up in jail. That's the way it has to be now."
Kilmeade then interjected with his suggestion that instead of jail, they should be given "involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill 'em."
As one X user noted, Jones and co-host Ainsley Earhardt, "[didn't] even blink an eye" in response to this call for mass murder.
While the claim that homeless people often "refuse" abundant services is a common talking point, it is not borne out by data. According to a report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness in 2023, more than three-fourths of direct service providers reported that they were forced to turn away homeless people due to staffing shortages.
But even in cases where homeless people are offered services—such as temporary shelter beds—and decline them, they often do so not because they prefer to be on the street but because shelters are often overcrowded and poorly maintained, or have restrictive rules that require them to separate from their families, pets, and belongings.
When homeless people are offered permanent shelter, they are comparatively much more likely to accept it. According to one 2020 study from UC San Francisco, 86% of "high-risk" chronically homeless people given access to permanent supportive housing were successfully housed and remained in their housing for several years, a much higher rate than those given temporary solutions.
But as Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, wrote on X, "Universal healthcare, housing, and anti-poverty programs are considered more 'radical' on Fox News than mass murder."
Kilmeade's calls to execute the homeless were met with horror and disgust from advocates. Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, called for Kilmeade to resign.
“It is dangerous. It shows a lack of human compassion and it is really the worst possible time for that kind of language to be expressed,” Whitehead told the Irish Star.
Jesse Rabinowitz, communications and campaign manager with the National Homelessness Law Center in Washington, DC, noted in The Independent that Kilmeade's comments come as the Trump administration "is proposing government-run detention camps and massive psychiatric asylums" to house the homeless.
In August, the president launched a crackdown against homeless encampments in DC that advocates say has left hundreds of people with nowhere to go and dependent on overwhelmed city services. Meanwhile, his administration and recent Republican legislation have introduced massive cuts to housing funding for homeless people across the United States.
“America’s homeless population includes over a million children and tens of thousands of veterans, many of whom served in Iraq or Afghanistan,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). “Nobody deserves to be murdered by the government for mental illness or poverty. These Fox hosts are calling for mass murder—it’s sick.”
Kilmeade apologized for his comment on Sunday, describing it as an "extremely callous remark.” There is no indication from Fox News that Kilmeade will be subject to any disciplinary action over his remarks, which critics found noteworthy given the punishments other figures in mainstream media have faced for saying far less.
Photojournalist Zach D. Roberts pointed out that earlier this week, MSNBC fired contributor Matthew Dowd for criticizing the "hateful" and "divisive" rhetoric of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk shortly after he'd been assassinated.
"On MSNBC, a contributor got fired for lightly criticizing Charlie Kirk," Roberts said. "Meanwhile, on Fox News, Brian Kilmeade calls for the murder of homeless people for being homeless. Nothing has happened to him. I don't know if there can be a more obvious divide in politics."
"They are leveraging this platform to share untruths about vaccines to scare people," said one doctor Kennedy fired from the panel.
Health officials working under Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may seek to restrict access to the Covid-19 vaccine for people under 75 years old.
The Washington Post reported Friday that the officials plan to justify the move by citing reports from an unverified database to make the claim that the shots caused the deaths of 25 children.
The reports come from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a federal database that allows the public to submit reports of negative reactions to vaccines. As the Post explains, VAERS "contains unverified reports of side effects or bad experiences with vaccines submitted by anyone, including patients, doctors, pharmacists, or even someone who sees a report on social media."
As one publicly maintained database of "Batshit Crazy VAERS Adverse Events" found, users have reported deaths and injuries resulting from gunshot wounds, malaria, drug overdoses, and countless other unrelated causes as possible cases of vaccine injury.
As Beth Mole wrote for ARS Technica, "The reports are completely unverified upon submission, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff follow up on serious reports to try to substantiate claims and assess if they were actually caused by a vaccine. They rarely are."
Nevertheless, HHS officials plan to use these VAERS reports on pediatric deaths in a presentation to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) next week as the panel considers revising federal vaccine guidelines.
One person familiar with the matter told the Post that HHS officials attempted to interview some of the families who claimed their child died from the vaccine, but it is unclear how many were consulted and what other information was used to verify their claims.
In June, Kennedy purged that panel of many top vaccine experts, replacing them with prominent anti-vaccine activists, after previously promising during his confirmation hearing to keep the panel intact.
The Food and Drug Administration under Kennedy has already limited access to the Covid-19 vaccine. Last month, it authorized the vaccines only for those 65 and over who are known to be at risk of serious illness from Covid-19 infections.
While the vaccine is technically available to others, the updated guidance has created significant barriers, such as the potential requirement of a doctor's prescription and out-of-pocket payment, making it much harder for many to receive the shot.
The Post reports that ACIP is considering restricting access to the vaccination further, by recommending it only for those older than 75. It is weighing multiple options for those 74 and younger—potentially requiring them to consult with their doctor first, or not recommending it at all unless they have a preexisting condition.
Prior to the wide availability of Covid-19 vaccinations beginning in 2021, the illness killed over 350,000 people in the US. And while the danger of death from Covid-19 does increase with age, CDC data shows that from 2020 to 2023, nearly 47% of the over 1.1 million deaths from the illness occurred in people under 75.
According to the World Health Organization, the US reported 822 deaths from Covid over a 28-day period in July and August this year, vastly more deaths than anywhere else in the world. CDC data reported to ACIP in June shows that Covid deaths were lower among all age groups—including children—who received the mRNA vaccine.
Nicole Brewer, one of the vaccine advisers eliminated by Kennedy, lamented that Kennedy and his new appointees are ignoring the dangers of Covid-19 while amplifying the comparatively much lower risk posed by vaccines.
"They are leveraging this platform to share untruths about vaccines to scare people," she told the Post. “The U.S. government is now in the business of vaccine misinformation.”
ACIP is also reportedly mulling the rollback of guidelines for other childhood vaccines for deadly diseases like measles, Hepatitis B, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV).
While ACIP's guidelines are not legally binding, the Post writes that its meeting next week "is critical because the recommendations determine whether insurers must pay for the immunizations, pharmacies can administer them, and doctors are willing to offer them."
"If you haven't gotten your updated Covid vaccine by now, book an appointment fast before next week's ACIP meeting," warned Dr. David Gorski, the editor of the blog Science-Based Medicine. "After that, you might not be able to get one."
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” said one free speech advocate.
Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about a bill in the US House of Representatives that they fear could allow Secretary of State Marco Rubio to strip US citizens of their passports based purely on political speech.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), will come up for a hearing on Wednesday. According to The Intercept:
Mast’s new bill claims to target a narrow set of people. One section grants the secretary of state the power to revoke or refuse to issue passports for people who have been convicted—or merely charged—of material support for terrorism...
The other section sidesteps the legal process entirely. Rather, the secretary of state would be able to deny passports to people whom they determine “has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”
Rubio has previously boasted of stripping the visas and green cards from several immigrants based purely on their peaceful expression of pro-Palestine views, describing them as "Hamas supporters."
These include Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after Rubio voided his green card; and Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts student whose visa Rubio revoked after she co-wrote an op-ed calling for her school to divest from Israel.
Mast—a former soldier for the Israel Defense Forces who once stated that babies were "not innocent Palestinian civilians"—has previously called for "kicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country," speaking about the Trump administration's attempts to deport Khalil, who was never convicted or even charged with support for a terrorist group.
Critics have argued that the bill has little reason to exist other than to allow the Secretary of State to unilaterally strip passports from people without them actually having been convicted of a crime.
As Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted in The Intercept, there is little reason to restrict people convicted of terrorism or material support for terrorism, since—if they were guilty—they'd likely be serving a long prison sentence and incapable of traveling anyway.
“I can’t imagine that if somebody actually provided material support for terrorism, there would be an instance where it wouldn’t be prosecuted—it just doesn’t make sense,” he said.
Journalist Zaid Jilani noted on X that "judges can already remove a passport over material support for terrorism, but the difference is you get due process. This bill would essentially make Marco Rubio judge, jury, and executioner."
The bill does contain a clause allowing those stripped of their passports to appeal to Rubio. But, as Hamadanchy notes, the decision is up to the secretary alone, "who has already made this determination." He said that for determining who is liable to have their visa stripped, "There's no standard set. There’s nothing."
As Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted in The Intercept, the language in Mast's bill is strikingly similar to that found in the so-called "nonprofit killer" provision that Republicans attempted to pass in July's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act. That provision, which was ultimately struck from the bill, would have allowed the Treasury Secretary to unilaterally strip nonprofit status from anything he deemed to be a "terrorist-supporting organization."
Stern said Mast's bill would allow for "thought policing at the hands of one individual."
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” he said, "even if what they say doesn’t include a word about a terrorist organization or terrorism."