June, 19 2020, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Andrew Hawley, Western Environmental Law Center, 206-487-7250, hawley@westernlaw.org
Collette Adkins, Center for Biological Diversity, 651-955-3821, cadkins@biologicaldiversity.org
Nina Bell, Northwest Environmental Advocates, 503-295-0490, nbell@advocates-nwea.org
Trump Administration OKs Beaver Killing in Oregon, Despite Harm to Endangered Salmon, Steelhead
Despite recognizing that restoring beaver populations is key to recovery of imperiled salmon and steelhead species, a federal agency just gave the go-ahead to keep killing beavers in Oregon.
Portland, OR
Despite recognizing that restoring beaver populations is key to recovery of imperiled salmon and steelhead species, a federal agency just gave the go-ahead to keep killing beavers in Oregon.
In a long-awaited analysis, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued its findings on the impact on salmon and steelhead of continued killing of Oregon beavers by Wildlife Services, an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The NMFS analysis highlighted the importance of beavers in creating excellent fish habitat and demonstrated that beavers have been reduced to only 3-10 percent of their historical populations. Despite the clear connection between beavers and healthy salmon and steelhead populations, NMFS concludes that Wildlife Services' beaver killing will not harm twelve species of salmon and steelhead that require protection under the Endangered Species Act because their populations are so imperiled.
"NMFS acknowledges in this opinion that Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead evolved with beaver dams and adapted to their presence, yet, in the same document turns a blind eye to a federal agency killing 400 or more beavers a year in the Beaver State," said Andrew Hawley, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. "Allowing Wildlife Services to resume business as usual, NMFS missed the opportunity to set clear guidelines on when beaver killing shouldn't and should be allowed given beavers' importance to the threatened and endangered fish of Oregon."
The NMFS analysis, called a biological opinion, does require some long-overdue minimum measures to better understand how many beavers are being killed, such as accurate monitoring and timely reporting. In the future, NMFS has instructed Wildlife Services to provide information on the benefits of beavers and their dams, and the availability of non-lethal control measures to anyone who asks the agency to kill a beaver within salmon or steelhead habitat.
In its opinion, NMFS also encourages Wildlife Services to promote the use of nonlethal methods to remove or discourage beavers. These non-lethal control measures -- such as flow control devices to maintain the level of beaver ponds, fencing to prevent beavers from building dams in culverts, and wrapping trees -- are widely available and effective tools to reduce conflicts and allow beavers to play their essential role in aquatic ecosystems.
"This opinion is a classic mix of science and politics in the Trump era," said Nina Bell, executive director of Northwest Environmental Advocates. "The science overwhelmingly says that beavers are essential to preserving and creating salmon habitat, yet the federal agencies conclude that continued beaver killing should proceed so long as they send reports about it. Unfortunately, there is no link between more paperwork and salmon survival."
The NMFS opinion was spurred by a 2017 threat by environmental groups to sue Wildlife Services over its failure to analyze the effects of its beaver killing on threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead. As required by the Endangered Species Act, program managers then agreed to consult with NMFS and to stop killing beavers, river otter, muskrat, and mink in Oregon pending this opinion.
Numerous studies show that beavers benefit endangered salmon and steelhead by creating ponds that provide fish with food and habitat. Despite these well-established ecological benefits, in past years, Wildlife Services killed hundreds of beavers annually with traps, snares and firearms. In 2016 the program in Oregon killed more than 400 beavers--the official state animal.
"Beavers are ecologically important, as well as hardworking and adorable, and the federal government should stop killing them," said Collette Adkins, a Center for Biological Diversity attorney and biologist. "I'm glad that over the last several years, our efforts saved hundreds of Oregon's beavers. We're going to keep fighting for them."
ESA-listed species NMFS says killing beavers is "likely to adversely affect" but "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of:
Columbia River chum salmon
Middle Columbia River steelhead
Lower Columbia River coho salmon
Lower Columbia River steelhead
Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon
Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon
Upper Willamette River steelhead
Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon
Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon
Snake River Basin steelhead
Oregon Coast coho salmon
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon
ESA-listed species NMFS and Wildlife Services say killing beavers "may affect but are not likely to adversely affect" the following species or their critical habitats:
Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook
Upper Columbia River steelhead
Snake River sockeye salmon
Southern distinct population segment Pacific eulachon
Southern distinct population segment green sturgeon
The Western Environmental Law Center uses the power of the law to safeguard the public lands, wildlife, and communities of the American West in the face of a changing climate. We envision a thriving, resilient West, abundant with protected public lands and wildlife, powered by clean energy, and defended by communities rooted in an ethic of conservation.
(541) 485-2471LATEST NEWS
'Important Victory' for Florida Higher Ed: Court Upholds Block on DeSantis Censorship Law
"This is an important step in preserving the truth, civil liberties, and a better future," said one state ACLU attorney.
Mar 16, 2023
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place a preliminary injunction against Florida GOP policymakers' school censorship law in what rights advocates celebrated as "an important victory for professors, other educators, and students."
The appellate court denied a request from Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration and higher education officials to block a district judge's injunction that is currently preventing enforcement of the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees (WOKE) Act—rebranded by its supporters as the Individual Freedom Act—in the state's public colleges and universities.
DeSantis' Stop WOKE Act "limits the ways concepts related to systemic racism and sex discrimination can be discussed in teaching or conducting training in workplaces or schools," parroting a Trump administration executive order that was ultimately rescinded by President Joe Biden, the ACLU explained last year.
The plaintiffs in one of the relevant cases, Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, are represented by the national and state ACLU along with the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and Ballard Spahr, who first filed the federal suit last August—the same day U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a separate injunction against the law related to employers.
The new appeals court order upholds the injunction Walker issued in November, which began by quoting George Orwell's novel 1984. Calling the controversial law "positively dystopian," the judge wrote at the time that "the powers in charge of Florida's public university system have declared the state has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of 'freedom.'"
"All students and educators deserve to have a free and open exchange about issues related to race in our classrooms."
Leah Watson, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program, said Thursday that "the court's decision to leave in place the preliminary injunction is a recognition of the serious injury posed to educators and students by the Stop WOKE Act."
"All students and educators deserve to have a free and open exchange about issues related to race in our classrooms," Watson argued, rather than censored discussions that erase "the history of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, and LGBTQ+ individuals."
LDF assistant counsel Alexsis Johnson similarly stressed that "institutions of higher education in Florida should have the ability to provide a quality education, which simply cannot happen when students and educators, including Black students and educators, feel they cannot speak freely about their lived experiences, or when they feel that they may incur a politician's wrath for engaging in a fact-based discussion of our history."
The order also pertains to a challenge filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in September.
"Professors must be able to discuss subjects like race and gender without hesitation or fear of state reprisal," FIRE said Thursday. "Any law that limits the free exchange of ideas in university classrooms should lose in both the court of law and the court of public opinion."
The Stop WOKE Act is part of a nationwide effort by Republican state lawmakers and governors—especially DeSantis, a potential 2024 GOP presidential candidate—to curtail what content can be shared and discussed in classrooms and workplaces.
"Since January 2021, 44 states have introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism," according to an Education Week analysis updated on Monday. "Eighteen states have imposed these bans and restrictions either through legislation or other avenues."
ACLU of Florida staff attorney Jerry Edwards warned Thursday that "lawmakers continue to threaten our democracy by attempting to curtail important discussions about our collective history and treatment of Black and Brown communities."
"This is an important step in preserving the truth, civil liberties, and a better future," Edwards said of the 11th Circuit's decision.
Though legal groups welcomed the order, the battle over the law is ongoing. The court will eventually rule on the merits of the case—which DeSantis' press secretary Bryan Griffin highlighted Thursday, adding, "We remain confident that the law is constitutional."
Opponents of the law are also undeterred, as Ballard Spahr litigation department chair Jason Leckerman made clear.
"The movement to restrict academic freedom and curtail the rights of marginalized communities is as pervasive as it is pernicious," he said. "We are proud of the work we have done so far with our partners, the ACLU and Legal Defense Fund, but the fight is far from over. Today, we'll take a moment to savor this result—and then we'll keep working."
This post has been updated with comment from FIRE and Gov. Ron DeSantis' press secretary.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Reversal of Trump-Era Stance, Biden DOJ Backs Colorado Communities Suing Big Oil
"The Justice Department has added its voice to a series of unanimous court rulings that support communities in their efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their climate lies," said one campaigner.
Mar 16, 2023
Climate defenders on Thursday applauded the Justice Department's move to support communities suing a pair of oil companies by urging the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the corporations' bid to keep the case out of state court.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed an amicus brief urging the high court to deny a petition from ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy asking the justices to review lower court rulings allowing a lawsuit from three Colorado communities to proceed.
In 2018, Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the city of Boulder sued the corporations for damages related to their decades of fossil fuel extraction—which is fueling global heating—and their lies.
"It's past time that Big Oil companies face the evidence of their climate lies and answer to juries in state court."
Common Dreamsreported in July 2020 that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit could proceed in state rather than federal court, the second time in two months that federal judges handed down such decisions.
Fossil fuel giants have repeatedly tried to shift such suits from state to federal courts in a bid to get the cases dismissed and avoid paying massive amounts of money for their significant contributions to the climate emergency.
"By finally ending its Trump-era support for Big Oil, the Justice Department has added its voice to a series of unanimous court rulings that support communities in their efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their climate lies," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Thursday.
According to the Center for Climate Integrity:
On the campaign trail, President [Joe] Biden pledged he would direct his attorney general to "strategically support" such lawsuits, but the department had allowed its Trump-era support of oil companies to remain in effect until today. To date, five federal appeals courts and 13 federal district courts have unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry's arguments to avoid trials in state courts. Last year, the Supreme Court asked the Justice Department to express its views on the matter.
"Big Oil companies have fought tirelessly to escape accountability for fueling the climate crisis and then lying about it, but judges have uniformly denied their pleas to escape trial in state courts," said Wiles. "Communities in Colorado and across the U.S. have waited long enough for justice. It's past time that Big Oil companies face the evidence of their climate lies and answer to juries in state court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Shows Support as Senate Advances Repeal of Iraq War Authorizations
"Repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military operations and would support this administration's commitment to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi partners."
Mar 16, 2023
As the U.S. Senate on Thursday teed up a vote to end the congressional authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars, President Joe Biden formally backed the bipartisan bill.
The progress on finally repealing the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) comes just ahead of the 20th anniversary of the George W. Bush administration's costly and devastating invasion of Iraq.
The bill ( S. 316/H.R. 932) was reintroduced in February by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and has GOP co-sponsors in both chambers. On Thursday, 19 Republican senators joined with all Democrats present to advance the measure.
The legislation has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives, which is narrowly controlled by the GOP. However, if it reaches the president's desk, he supports it, according to the statement of administration policy released Thursday.
While former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump used the 2002 authorization to justify strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, respectively, the new Biden administration document notes that "the United States conducts no ongoing military activities that rely primarily on the 2002 AUMF, and no ongoing military activities that rely on the 1991 AUMF, as a domestic legal basis."
"Repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military operations and would support this administration's commitment to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi partners," that policy statement adds. "President Biden remains committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats."
Demand Progress Education Fund policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement that "we are glad President Biden is supportive of getting these outdated AUMFs off the books, and that he is committed to work with Congress on presumably replacing the 2001 AUMF with a narrower framework."
"However, any serious attempt by President Biden to work with Congress on war powers reforms requires the administration to halt unauthorized participation of U.S. armed forces in hostilities that contravene the War Powers Act," Kharrazian stressed. "This includes ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition's war on Yemen, ceasing the use of U.S. forces to protect Syrian oil fields and battling Iranian-backed militias, and putting an end to legally dubious military operations in the Horn of Africa."
The campaigner continued:
Moreover, the administration must commit to full legal transparency regarding the use of military force. Both this administration and previous administrations have failed to provide Congress with timely reporting on the 2001 AUMF, as required by 50 U.S. Code § 1550. Additionally, President Biden has failed to respond to lawmakers' inquiries about the administration's legal justifications for the expansive use of the 2001 AUMF and Article 2 authorities. Without such transparency, Congress is unable to fully exercise its oversight and legislative duties over war and peace.
It's encouraging to see an administration committed to addressing outdated AUMFs. However, a genuine commitment will involve respecting congressional authority over war by proactively ending unauthorized military activities and implementing comprehensive transparency measures.
In a series of tweets, the Quaker advocacy group Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) welcomed the administration's position and highlighted fresh comments from Kaine and Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a co-sponsor, who gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday with members of the American Legion.
"There's no reason—none—to have a war authorization against a strategic partner, and so that's the first reason why we need to do this," Kaine said of Iraq, adding that the repeal must also occur to honor U.S. service members.
Kaine called out previous failures by Congress to end the AUMFs, and noted that leaving them in place enables abuse. While confirming he has not spoken with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about the bill, the senator expressed optimism that it will pass—saying of the lower chamber, "there's a wonderful bipartisan coalition there as well."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.