Animals

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Should No Labels Run a Presidential Candidate?

      by

      More from our inbox:Oppenheimer’s Lessons on Politics and ScienceDisease Outbreaks in Animal IndustriesCans on the Newlyweds’ Car Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “With Centrist Platform, No Labels Pushes Cause and Latent Third-Party Bid” (news article, July 16):Although I would love to see our two-party system evolve and I think less acrimony is essential to moving forward, I have two basic problems with the No Labels party idea.First, the U.S. system simply doesn’t support the creation of viable alternate parties. Until the barriers in place are removed, all third parties can do is play spoiler.Second, I firmly believe that our first priority should be defending our democratic foundation. For the first time in U.S. history, we have one party actively and unashamedly undermining the rule of law and democracy itself. We need to defend and shore up our democracy first. Then it will be a great time to change the rules so we don’t have this seemingly black or white constraint for our choice of candidate.Since Harlan Crow, the Texas billionaire who gives generous gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas, is a contributor to No Labels, I am suspicious of the rest of the donors whom we don’t know about.I see this movement as a political effort designed to prey on the public’s good faith, good intentions and frustration with the chaos caused by anti-democracy forces in the U.S.The way forward is to stick together for democracy — not splinter.Deb GarriesCalgary, AlbertaThe writer is an American citizen.To the Editor:The article mentions the possibility of the No Labels movement in the U.S. seeking to be listed on state ballots as a political party. This is no easy job. Of the two largest American minor political parties, Libertarians and Greens, only the Libertarians have been getting their candidates on the ballot in all 50 states.Each state has its own often complex rules and requirements to be listed on its ballots. Any group such as No Labels could also face legal challenges by one or both of the major parties. Such an effort to gain ballot access for a new party typically requires years of work and much money.No Labels could cause problems in battleground states for President Biden’s re-election bid, but No Labels’ major battle would be just trying to get on state ballots.Dan DonovanBrooklynTo the Editor:The third-party scam must have the Trump wing of the G.O.P. chuckling with glee. Currently, only a Republican or Democrat can win the presidency, and that’s not going to change in a year and a half. Donald Trump’s followers will not be moved by persuasion or facts, so he will be a nominee.This week you reported on Mr. Trump’s intent to concentrate power in the executive branch, weakening the courts and Congress. He plans the end of the republic as we know it. Yet his followers will vote for him.The Republicans’ path to power is a continual drumbeat of “President Biden’s too old, we need fresh blood,” etc., shifting attention away from Mr. Biden’s effectiveness. The strategy: Persuade Democratic voters that they are too “sophisticated” (No Labels) to accept the binary choice, and should go for a Manchin, a Kennedy.In 2000, Ralph Nader voters helped elect George W. Bush, who attacked Iraq and ballooned the national debt. Many “Bernie Bros” in 2016 refused to vote for Hillary Clinton, helping clear the way for Mr. Trump.Thanks for nothing.This search for political purity, or just novelty, could ironically result in the beginning of American dictatorship next year. It is unrealistic to think that third-party votes will lead anywhere else.Howard SchmittGreen Tree, Pa.To the Editor:I’d like to propose an alternative way to refer to No Labels. It should be called what it is: Republicans Only Not in Name (RONIN). Not only is that resonant with the term RINO (Republicans in Name Only), which is used by many Republicans to refer to other Republicans they disapprove of. It’s also consistent with the Japanese term “ronin,” a kind of loose cannon in the feudal social structure.Ron GroveFlagstaff, Ariz.Oppenheimer’s Lessons on Politics and ScienceJ. Robert Oppenheimer in an undated photo.Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “‘Oppenheimer’ Shows the Danger of Politicizing Science,” by Kai Bird (Opinion guest essay, July 18):Mr. Bird’s excellent essay about J. Robert Oppenheimer illustrates all too well the dangers to our democracy in allowing political rhetoric and policies to alter scientific facts and theories.Such lessons do not belong only to the McCarthy era. The politicization of the Covid vaccine and the far right’s attack on Dr. Anthony Fauci are recent history. And indeed, as we speak, Republican strategists are planning increased executive and presidential political control over scientific and other now independent agencies.Let’s not let the lessons of Oppenheimer be lost. They are as relevant now as they were in the McCarthy era.Ken GoldmanBeverly Hills, Calif.To the Editor:Whether it’s harsh truths about atomic power or the merits of vaccines against Covid-19, influenza and childhood illnesses, it’s science — regularly, honestly and clearly explained — that is sanity’s ultimate home-field advantage.Peter J. PittsNew YorkThe writer, a former F.D.A. associate commissioner, is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a visiting professor at the University of Paris School of Medicine.Disease Outbreaks in Animal IndustriesThe United States produces 10 billion animals for food every year, including more pigs and poultry, which can harbor and transmit influenza, than nearly any other country.Gerry Broome/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Risk Seen in U.S. Animal Industries” (Science Times, July 11), about the risk of infectious disease outbreaks:This article is illuminating, but one element of the crisis is missing: the degree to which animals suffer in these appalling situations.Consider the complete lack of hygiene to which animals confined in farming operations and live animal markets are subjected without relief until they die, either at the hands of slaughterers or from chronic stress and disease.I doubt that much will be done to control the animal industries identified in the article until more people speak out against what these animals are forced to endure.The cruelty and contamination are linked. We might stretch our imaginations to make this connection and act on it.Karen DavisMachipongo, Va.The writer is the president of United Poultry Concerns, a nonprofit that promotes the respectful treatment of domesticated birds.Cans on the Newlyweds’ CarTo the Editor:Re “Where Those Cans Behind the Car Came From” (Traditions, Sunday Styles, July 16):When my wife, Laurie, and I were married, my brothers affixed a “Just Married” sign and a bouquet of cans to the bumper of my Jeep Cherokee.On our way to the airport that evening, we were pulled over by the Suffield, Conn., police. We weren’t speeding, and there was no one else on the road. Perhaps the officer wanted to congratulate the newlyweds?No; apparently a can had come loose from the vehicle. We were issued a warning — and informed that a ticket would have cost us $82 (more than $200 today) — for “operating with an unsecure load.”Despite that inauspicious start, my wife and I will celebrate our 34th anniversary in November.David CecchiAgawam, Mass. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Should Iowa or South Carolina Go First?

      by

      More from our inbox:Humans and Wildlife: The Messages Are MixedThe Decades-Long Struggle for Affordable Child Care Antonio Giovanni PinnaTo the Editor:Re “Democrats to Iowa: Get Lost!,” by Art Cullen (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 12):Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Cullen is revealing more about the problem with Iowa than anything about the Democratic Party when he complains that the Democrats’ proposed new primary schedule is set up to “dump the Iowa caucuses into the ditch.”It does no such thing, of course; it merely deprives the Hawkeye State of its guaranteed gatekeeper status at the head of the line. Mr. Cullen’s self-righteous huffing that “discarding Iowa is not a great way to mend fences in rural America” seems to suggest that he feels that somehow his state is read out of the Union if it isn’t allowed to speak first when presidential primary season rolls around.New Hampshire, which holds the first actual primaries, has a similar attitude. Neither state’s position on the electoral calendar was inscribed in stone, but you’d never know it from their champions’ zealotry on this issue.Personally, I’d prefer to see the order of the primaries and caucuses reshuffled before every presidential election. That way, at least Iowa would be at or near the front at least some of the time, but one of the smaller, whitest states in the nation wouldn’t get to fire the race’s starting gun every time. Surely Iowans can find something else about their state to be proud of.Eric B. LippsStaten IslandTo the Editor:Art Cullen’s critique of the Democratic National Committee’s proposal to put South Carolina ahead of Iowa on the nominating calendar is misguided. Democrats haven’t dumped “the Iowa caucuses into a ditch.” Rather, they’re considering leading with a state with voter rolls that better represent Democratic voters and the country as a whole.Mr. Cullen argues that diversity has a chance in Iowa, citing Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton at the caucus. But an overwhelmingly white electorate choosing a diverse candidate is not the same as a diverse electorate having its say in the process.Rural states like Iowa have challenges, but they don’t need symbolic support like keeping the Iowa caucus first. Instead, they need real solutions, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides subsidies for renewable energy projects that will bring economic vitality to rural areas.John HorschOakland, Calif.To the Editor:Art Cullen’s essay was remarkably self-serving. Iowa goes first by tradition, which gives a rural, largely white state outsized importance.I get that Iowans want to hold onto their position, but why should the rest of the nation take cues from this one state? It is time to hold national primaries, all on the same day. Let everyone in the nation vote, at the same time. This has the side benefit of shortening the ridiculously long primary season.Katherine Jo GlavesSeattleHumans and Wildlife: The Messages Are Mixed Tom KrawczykTo the Editor:Re “My Mother Has Two Sons: Me and a Squirrel” (Op-Doc, nytimes.com, Dec. 5):What a joy to wake up to such a tender video of a woman responding to an abandoned newborn creature in her yard. Her son, Tom Krawczyk, is a gifted videographer whose obvious professionalism captured both his mother’s humanity and her concern for a wild animal’s future.At this time of year, especially this year, it is a balm to witness such a poignant gem as this, reminding me of all that is fresh and good in the world and that this sort of intimate connection, wherever we find it, is the ultimate healing.Marjorie HermanHamilton, N.J.To the Editor:I was frustrated by the mixed messaging in The Times about how to best care for wildlife. The Dec. 5 Op-Doc about a woman raising a newborn squirrel as a family member is heartwarming, but unfortunately has the potential to seriously mislead viewers.It counters the excellent advice found in a piece by Margaret Renkl (“Wildlife Rescue Heals the Human Heart,” Opinion guest essay, Dec. 7) about the importance of wildlife rehabilitation centers.The responsible — and legal — thing to do when encountering orphaned or injured wildlife is to place the animal with a certified wildlife rehabilitator.Home-raised animals can suffer from nutritional deficiencies or simply may not survive a well-meaning amateur’s aid. Animals that become acclimated to humans have been known to attack their caregivers or strangers who don’t understand their natural behaviors.Their instinctual response to potential predators might also be compromised. (In this video, the squirrel was friends with a cat.) The most compassionate response is to put an animal’s care into the hands of someone who has the educational training to best support their survival.Kim BaileyNashvilleThe writer is a retired metro parks naturalist.To the Editor:Re “Wildlife Rescue Heals the Human Heart”:Although it was heartwarming to read about the often heroic efforts of wildlife rehabilitators in helping injured and orphaned animals, I can’t help thinking about all the ways that other, less compassionate humans deliberately inflict harm and torture on our wildlife.The indiscriminate trapping and snaring of wolves, the barbaric wildlife-killing contests that still take place in many states and all forms of recreational trophy hunting reflect an indifference to the suffering of our nonhuman kinfolk, who like us value their lives, strive to take care of their families and have every right to share this earth with us.Mary Anne EricsonPortland, Ore.The Decades-Long Struggle for Affordable Child Care Eleanor DavisTo the Editor:Re “The Child Care Crisis Has Been ‘Urgent’ Since ’86. Just Ask Cosmo,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, nytimes.com, Dec. 7):I read Ms. Grose’s excellent article with a sense of déjà vu — the more things change, the more they stay the same.In 1982, a group of friends and I started a day care center on the Upper West Side because there were few options for full-time working parents.We managed to receive support from a private foundation to help us set up the little center, secured space in a rundown synagogue, and founded one of the first Jewish all-day child care centers in New York City. We named it Yaldaynu, Hebrew for “our children.” (I am pleased to say it is still operating.)It is sad that 40 years later, my daughter, one of those first children, and now a mother, still does not have quality, affordable day care options for her daughter.When will the U.S. do what most of the rest of the West does and provide quality affordable child care for their citizens? Why is this not even on the agenda of urgent our country is facing?Now is the time for Cosmo, which ran a cover story on this issue in 1986, to put it back on the cover, and for politicians, corporations and nonprofits to take action.Jeanne B. KesAlbuquerque More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Election Deniers Running for Office

      by

      More from our inbox:The Trump Subpoena Is a MistakeAbduction of Ukrainian Children: An ‘Insidious’ Russian PlaybookBerlusconi’s Affection for Putin‘Stop Eating Animals’ The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “2020 Election Skeptics Crowd the Republican Ticket Nationwide” (front page, Oct. 15):It is inevitable that many Republican election deniers running for office in November will be elected, especially in red states and districts, but I am just as worried about the election deniers who will lose.Will they accept their losses or, like Donald Trump, refuse to concede and charge that their election was rigged? Even worse, and again emulating Mr. Trump, will they incite their supporters to storm the offices where votes are being tabulated and/or where elections are being certified? This could be especially problematic in districts and states that take a long time to count absentee and mail-in ballots.Democracy requires that losers accept their losses. Unfortunately, 2020 election deniers care more about winning at any price than they do about democracy. I envision violence breaking out at county election boards and state offices from Maine to California. I just hope that local police departments are better prepared than the Capitol Police were on Jan. 6.Richard KaveshNyack, N.Y.The writer is a former mayor of Nyack.To the Editor:The number of election skeptics running should not come as a surprise to anyone. When we allow partisan politicians to gerrymander their states into electorally “safe” districts, the real voting occurs in the primaries. Extremists tend to win in the primaries, so this system almost guarantees that extremists, from both ends of the political spectrum, will be elected.When we send extremists of the left and the right to Washington, no one should be surprised that the process of compromise, so essential for good government, is impossible for them.Until the Supreme Court bars partisans from the electoral mapping process, America will remain stuck in a political quagmire of its own making. In recent times partisans have been barred from this process in countries such as Canada, Britain and Australia. Why can’t we take the same step in America?James TysonTrenton, N.J.To the Editor:In the midst of Covid, America significantly relaxed its voting formalities for 2020, with unrequested mail-in ballots; unsupervised, 24-hour drop boxes; and no-excuse-needed absentee voting. When the G.O.P. suggests that lax voting procedures harmed electoral integrity, they are charged with threatening American democracy. Yet when the G.O.P. attempts to restore pre-Covid voting formalities, the Democrats histrionically scream that American democracy is being threatened by Jim Crow voter suppression.The Times not only fails to challenge this specious Democratic assertion, but also joins the charge.Mike KueberSan AntonioTo the Editor:It seems that there has been one essential question left unasked in this challenging time period for our republic. I would suggest directing it to each and every election-denying Republican who was “elected” on that very same 2020 ballot:If the 2020 election was ripe with fraud, as you claim, and Donald Trump was cheated at the polls, then please explain how your election to office on the very same ballot managed to avoid being tainted as well.I expect the silence to be deafening.Adam StolerBronxTo the Editor:I object to The Times’s use of the term “skeptics” to describe Republican candidates who claim that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. Please leave “skeptic” to its proper uses. No one would say a politician who claimed that 2 + 2 = 13 million is a “math skeptic.” There are plenty of suitable words in the dictionary, including “liar” and “loon.”William Avery HudsonNew YorkThe Trump Subpoena Is a MistakeFormer President Donald J. Trump’s legal team could also invoke executive privilege in an attempt to ward off the subpoena.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Is Subpoenaed, Setting Up Likely Fight Over His Role on Jan. 6” (front page, Oct. 22):The decision by the House Jan. 6 committee to subpoena former President Donald Trump to testify is a mistake.Even if he agrees to appear before the committee, Mr. Trump’s behavior is predictable. Based on his inability to accept defeat, and his view of disagreement as something personal that warrants lashing out at the other party, we can expect him to approach the committee as an enemy, deserving nothing but contempt.Based on his past and continuing behavior, we can expect him to be nasty, offensive and obnoxious. Attempting to belittle the committee members individually and as a group, he would make a mockery of the proceedings. Nothing of substance would be accomplished, except to place his personality on public display, which continues to delight his supporters.So the committee should avoid the futile effort and potential embarrassment, and refrain from trying to have Mr. Trump appear before it.Ken LefkowitzMedford, N.J.Abduction of Ukrainian Children: An ‘Insidious’ Russian PlaybookA broken window at a hospital in March in Mariupol, Ukraine. Russian officials have made clear that their goal is to replace any childhood attachment to home with a love for Russia.Evgeniy Maloletka/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Taken by Russia, Children Become the Spoils of War” (front page, Oct. 23):The abduction of Ukrainian children into Russian families is more than “a propaganda campaign presenting Russia as a charitable savior.” It follows an insidious playbook used by Soviet leaders after their 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.Thousands of Afghan children were abducted to the Soviet Union to be given a Communist education, so that a new generation of Afghans would be trained to lead a Soviet-sponsored Afghanistan. In 1989, however, Soviet troops were forced from Afghanistan, unable to prevail against Afghans fiercely defending their homeland.Vladimir Putin may very well be repeating past practices, hoping to brainwash Ukrainian children into a love for Russia, and thus preparing them to lead a Russian-dominated Ukraine.But he should learn other lessons from the past instead: that people defending their country are not easily defeated, and that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan upended the Soviet leadership and, ultimately, the Soviet Union itself.Jeri LaberNew YorkThe writer is a founder of Human Rights Watch and the former director of its Europe and Central Asia division.Berlusconi’s Affection for Putin Vladimir Rodionov/SputnikTo the Editor:Re “Berlusconi, Caught on Tape Gushing Over Putin, Heightens Concerns” (news article, Oct. 21):Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s talk of “sweet” letters and affection for Vladimir Putin, the barbaric Russian president, is as troubling as the right-wing political party that has ascended to power in Italy, a party in which Mr. Berlusconi has a patriarchal, deeply influential role.But Mr. Berlusconi’s defense of Mr. Putin’s savage invasion of Ukraine is even more sickening and chilling. Woe to Europe and the world if we see any significant scaling back or ultimately an abandonment of financial and military support for Ukraine.Mr. Putin may send Mr. Berlusconi bottles of fine vodka, but the Russian leader’s main exports to the real world are terror, autocracy and death.Cody LyonBrooklyn‘Stop Eating Animals’Lily and Lizzie after being rescued.Direct Action EverywhereTo the Editor:Re “I Took 2 Piglets That Weren’t Mine, and a Jury Said That Was OK,” by Wayne Hsiung (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 21):Mr. Hsiung’s powerful essay reveals the horror of animals being raised for meat. Meat production creates catastrophic global warming and tortures sentient beings. Stop eating animals.Ann BradleyLos Angeles More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Commander in, Major out: White House pet shakeup after biting incidents

      by

      Commander in, Major out: White House pet shakeup after biting incidentsJoe Biden brings in new German shepherd puppy, to be joined by a cat in January President Joe Biden on Monday introduced the newest member of his family, a purebred German shepherd puppy named Commander, while the first lady’s office said the cat she promised more than a year ago to bring to the White House would finally join them in January.But the news was not so good for another member of the Biden animal family. The family decided it was best for their other German shepherd, Major, to live in a quieter environment with friends after some biting incidents.Biden shared a photo on his official Twitter account of the three-month-old male puppy with a caption that said: “Welcome to the White House, Commander.” He also released a brief video of him tossing a ball to Commander and walking the leashed dog into the White House.Commander was born on 1 September and arrived at the White House on Monday afternoon, a gift from the president’s brother James Biden and sister-in-law Sara Biden, according to Michael LaRosa, a spokesperson for the first lady, Jill Biden.His name appears to be a play on Biden’s status as commander-in-chief of the US armed forces.The first lady said shortly after Biden won the November 2020 presidential election that they would be getting a cat. LaRosa said the feline would join the family in January.The Bidens had two other German shepherds – Champ and Major – with them at the White House before Commander.But Major, a three-year-old rescue dog, ended up in the proverbial dog house following two biting incidents in the months after his arrival last January. He was sent home to Delaware for training before he was returned to the White House. White House officials had explained Major’s aggressive behaviour by saying he was still getting used to his new surroundings.But he was sent away again. Now, his permanent exile from the executive mansion appears official.“After consulting with dog trainers, animal behaviourists, and veterinarians, the first family has decided to follow the experts’ collective recommendation that it would be safest for Major to live in a quieter environment with family friends,” LaRosa said in an emailed statement. “This is not in reaction to any new or specific incident, but rather a decision reached after several months of deliberation as a family and discussions with experts.”Champ died in June at the age of 13.CNN first reported Commander’s arrival after he was seen scampering around the White House south lawn on Monday.TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsDogsPetsAnimalsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Montana could soon allow grizzly bear hunting for first time in decades

      by

      Montana could soon allow grizzly bear hunting for first time in decadesWildlife commissioners signed onto a multi-state plan as states in the northern Rockies push to ease federal protections Montana wildlife officials could soon allow grizzly bear hunting in areas around Glacier and Yellowstone national parks, if states in the US northern Rockies succeed in their attempts to lift federal protections for the animals.Grizzlies in the region have been protected as a threatened species since 1975 and were shielded from hunting for most of that time. But several states are pushing for restrictions to be eased.Montana governor Greg Gianforte last month announced the state intends to petition the Biden administration to lift threatened species protections for Glacier-area grizzlies. Wyoming governor Mark Gordon is leading a similar push to end protections for Yellowstone area bears. The two regions have the most bears in the US outside Alaska, the only state that currently allows hunting.As officials seek to make the case that protections are no longer needed, Montana wildlife commissioners on Tuesday voted to sign onto a multistate plan to maintain more than 900 bears in the Yellowstone area. Wyoming already has signed onto the plan, which would allow limited hunting. Idaho officials are expected to consider it next month.Montana commissioners also gave preliminary approval to revisions to Glacier-area bear population targets that could allow hunting of grizzlies in northwestern portions of the state if federal protections end. The rule calls for maintaining a population of more than 800 bears.Details on any future hunting seasons would be established at a later date.Wildlife advocates have objected to the bid to lift protections, saying state officials in the northern Rockies are intent on driving down populations of grizzlies and another predator, gray wolves.But state officials, backed by livestock and hunting groups, say bear populations need to be more closely controlled. They cite increasing conflicts between bears and humans, including attacks on livestock and occasional maulings of peopleAs many as 50,000 grizzly bears once ranged the western half of the US. Most were killed by hunting, trapping and habitat loss following the arrival of European settlers in the late 1800s. Populations declined to fewer than 1,000 bears in the lower 48 states by the time they were given federal protections in 1975.The last grizzly hunts in the US outside Alaska were in the early 1990s, under an exemption to protections that allowed 14 bears to be killed each fall in Montana.When Yellowstone grizzlies briefly lost protections under Donald Trump’s administration, Wyoming and Idaho scheduled hunts for 22 bears in Wyoming and one in Idaho, with hunting permits offered by lottery. A federal judge stepped in at the last minute and restored protections, a decision later upheld by the ninth US circuit court of appeals.The US Fish and Wildlife Service recommended in March to keep threatened-species protections for grizzlies. The agency cited a lack of connections between the bears’ best areas of habitat and people killing them, among other reasons. TopicsMontanaWyomingAnimalsBiden administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Victory for spotted owl as Trump-era plan to reduce habitat is struck down

      by

      WildlifeVictory for spotted owl as Trump-era plan to reduce habitat is struck down Biden administration move halts plan to allow logging in forests where imperiled bird lives Gabrielle Canon and agencies@GabrielleCanonTue 9 Nov 2021 22.18 ESTFirst published on Tue 9 Nov 2021 18.19 ESTIn a victory for the northern spotted owl, the Biden administration has struck down a Trump-era plan that would have removed more than 3.4m acres of critical habitat for the imperiled bird and opened the old-growth forests where it lives to logging.The population of the small chocolate-brown owl, which lives in forested areas in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, has been in decline for decades and has already lost roughly 70% of its habitat. Its numbers have plummeted 77% in Washington state, 68% in Oregon, and close to half in California, according to studies by the US Geological Survey, and biologists fear that further habitat reduction would put them on the path to extinction.A controversial decision made by Trump’s interior secretary just five days before leaving office was widely viewed as a parting gift to the timber industry. The Fish and Wildlife Service has since found that there was “insufficient rationale and justification” to reduce the threatened owl’s habitat.‘Wondrous and amazing’: female California condors can reproduce without malesRead moreUnder the new plan, roughly 204,000 acres – approximately 2% of the 9.6m acres designated as habitat for the owls in 2012 – will be made available for development while more than 3m will be restored and protected. The agency claims the exclusion of those lands from habitat designation will enable federal land managers to meet obligations to the logging industry and help limit catastrophic wildfires that continue to threaten forests in the west.“The exclusions we are proposing now will allow fuels management and sustainable timber harvesting to continue while supporting northern spotted owl recovery,” said Martha Williams, principal deputy director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, in a statement issued when the rule revision was proposed in July.Wildlife advocates, government agencies and the timber industry have sparred for decades over the northern spotted owl. Federal habitat protections imposed in 2012 were meant to avert the bird’s extinction. They’ve also been blamed for a logging slowdown that’s devastated some rural communities.The logging industry has pushed back against the revision, arguing that more thinning and management of protected forests is necessary to prevent wildfires, which devastated 560 square miles (1,450 square kilometers) of spotted owl habitat last fall. Most of that area is no longer considered viable for the birds.In the agency’s analysis of the rule-change, officials note that timber harvesting doesn’t lessen the risk of severe burns, writing that fuel reduction treatments – where smaller, less lucrative vegetation is strategically culled from the landscape – should instead be used to restore forest health. Federal land managers can still conduct these treatments in designated critical habitat, the agency concluded.Timber interests also say some of the land set aside under Tuesday’s announcement isn’t actually spotted owl habitat or is broken up into parcels too small to support the owl. As such, the smaller habitat designation issued under Trump was “legally and scientifically valid”, said Nick Smith, a spokesman for the American Forest Resource Council, a group that represents about 100 manufacturing and logging operations in five western US states.“The federal government cannot set aside critical habitat unless it is habitat for the species. That’s the critical concern,” he said.But the federal biologists found significant issues with the science used to push the previous rule through. David Bernhardt, Trump’s interior secretary, and Aurelia Skipwith, the former Fish and Wildlife service director, dismissed their concerns and underestimated the threat of extinction, according to documents reviewed by the Associated Press.Democratic lawmakers from Oregon, Washington and California in February called for an investigation into the removal of spotted owl protections, citing “potential scientific meddling” by Trump appointees.Bernhardt has defended his handling of the matter, telling AP that Congress gave the interior secretary authority to exclude areas from protection. Environmental advocates championed the move, but continue to have concerns that the agency would allow any amount of logging on the land.“We’re glad the Biden administration repealed the ridiculous and politically driven decision to strip 3m acres from the spotted owl’s critical habitat” said Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It needs all the habitat it can get if it’s going to make it.” But, he called the exclusions that remain, “disappointing”.“The Biden administration is condoning the cutting of old growth forests on BLM land,” he said. “It is definitely not what the owl needs and it’s not what our climate needs.”Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsWildlifeBiden administrationTrump administrationUS politicsAnimalsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Can red wolves come back from the brink of extinction again?

      by

      There are perhaps no more than 10 red wolves left in the wild, and they are all in just one place: North Carolina.
      It is an astonishing statistic for a species once hailed as undergoing the most successful reintroduction programme in the US, providing the blueprint for Yellowstone national park’s much-lauded grey wolf rewilding project.
      “The [red wolf] programme has almost entirely crumbled since I’ve been working here,” says Heather Clarkson, who works with the environmental charity Defenders of Wildlife. “It took about 20 years to get the programme to a strong place, that’s the really sad part. Because now it’s crashed. Disappointed barely scratches the surface.”
      In January, following legal action by conservation groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the district court for the eastern district of North Carolina ruled that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which had cancelled the red wolf reintroduction programme, must resume the release of wolves into the wild. This month the USFWS presented a new plan to the judge and he has given the groups that launched the lawsuit two weeks to lodge any objections.
      Start of the rewilding scheme
      The plan to boost the number of red wolves in the wild began in 1973, when the USFWS set out to capture as many of the remaining wolves as possible to establish a captive-breeding programme.
      In 1980, the red wolf was declared extinct in the wild. Seven years later the first reintroduction was made at the 60,000-hectare (152,000-acre) Alligator River national wildlife refuge in North Carolina. A breeding pair was released, and captive-bred pups were later fostered by the pack.
      At its peak, in 2011, there were as many as 130 red wolves back roaming the marshes, swamps and coastal prairies. Their recovery was the first time in the US that a large carnivore had been declared extinct in the wild and then successfully reintroduced. More