November, 11 2008, 09:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495
Chris Frissell, Pacific Rivers Council, (406) 471-3167
Roland Knapp, University of California, Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory, (760) 647-0034
Court Considers Interim Measures to Protect California's Sensitive Native Fish and Amphibians From Fish Stocking
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
TheSacramento Superior Court has ordered the
California Department of Fish and Game into talks with Pacific Rivers
Council and the Center for Biological Diversity to develop interim
measures to limit harm to native species caused by fish stocking. The
intent is to minimize the adverse effect that hatchery-raised fish
inflict on sensitive native fish and amphibian species while the
Department prepares an Environmental Impact Report under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
"Interim measures
limiting stocking are needed to help save California's native fish and
frogs from extinction," said Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program
director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Fish and Game should
still be able to stock hatchery fish, but in places where they won't
harm native species."
The court ruled in May 2007
that fish stocking has "significant environmental impacts" on "aquatic
ecosystems" and "in particular, on native species of fish, amphibians
and insects, some of which are threatened or endangered." The court
ordered the Department to analyze and mitigate the impacts of the
stocking program in an Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, by the end
of 2008. The Department returned to court last month to ask for a
one-year extension, to January 2010, because the agency has made little
progress on the EIR.
To reduce the impact of the
Department's delay, the Center and Pacific Rivers Council asked for
interim restrictions on stocking, including not stocking in areas where
sensitive species such as California golden trout, Santa Ana sucker,
mountain yellow-legged frog, and Cascades frog, are known to be present
or where the Department has yet to survey. Judge Patrick Marlette
stated in a tentative order that such interim measures may be
necessary, but gave the Department until November 24th to negotiate an
agreement with the two organizations to determine where stocking could
take place pending completion of the EIR. If no agreement is reached,
the Judge indicated that he would consider limiting stocking only to
water bodies where no at-risk species occur on an interim basis, as
proposed by petitioners.
"The far reaching,
often disastrous consequences of stocking hatchery fish have been known
for decades," said Dr. Chris Frissell, Director of Science and
Conservation for Pacific Rivers Council. "It's far past time the
Department of Fish and Game completed a credible review of the
environmental impacts of its hatchery program and identified the steps
needed to limit its impacts to sensitive native species, as many other
states have done. Interim measures are merely a short-term safety net
to protect vulnerable species and waters until the State meets its
legal mandate to produce a report."
The required
California Environmental Quality Act environmental review will for the
first time provide the public and independent wildlife experts with an
opportunity to actively participate in how the Department can improve
management of the statewide fish-stocking program to better meet the
needs of both California's native species and recreational anglers.
Suspending the stocking of non-native fish in certain areas while the
review is being conducted will allow the Department to keep open as
many options regarding future management as possible by ensuring that
interim stocking does not further jeopardize any of California's
wildlife.
"The Department needs to consider the environmental impacts of its fish-stocking program before
it stocks more fish into aquatic strongholds," said Frissell, who has
published numerous scientific articles on the ecology of native fish
and wildlife species. "This is the only way that the Department can be
sure that it is not causing or contributing to the loss of the last
remaining populations of these native California animals and the
habitat they depend on."
Removing non-native fish
once they have been introduced is difficult, expensive and can cause
further damage to sensitive species. Many of the sensitive fish and
amphibian species are already so seriously depleted by past impacts,
including fish stocking, that even one more year of stocking could
cause irreversible loss of some populations.
"The
mountain yellow-legged frog has disappeared from more than 90% of its
former range in the Sierra Nevada, and introduced trout are an
important cause of this decline," stated research biologist Dr. Roland
Knapp. Likewise, unintended consequences of stocking nonnative trout
without needed precautions have seriously compromised and set back the
State's own conservation and recovery efforts for its imperiled native
golden and redband trout. "On a hopeful note, a cessation of stocking
and the removal of nonnative trout from key sites can allow the
recovery of mountain-yellow legged frogs and other native species."
The Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity are
represented by Deborah A. Sivas of the Environmental Law Clinic, Mills
Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School. For more information about the
lawsuit go to www.pacrivers.org or www.biologicaldiversity.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
'Dangerous Union-Busting': Trump Rescinds Collective Bargaining for Air Safety Union
"Let's be clear: This is the beginning, not the end, of the fight for Americans' fundamental rights to join a union," said one labor leader.
Mar 08, 2025
Labor advocates condemned Friday's announcement by the Trump administration that it will end collective bargaining for Transportation Safety Administration security officers, a move described by one union leader as an act of "dangerous union-busting ripped from the pages of Project 2025."
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed in a statement Friday that collective bargaining for the TSA's security officers "constrained" the agency's chief mission of protecting transportation systems and keeping travelers safe, and that "eliminating collective bargaining removes bureaucratic hurdles that will strengthen workforce agility, enhance productivity and resiliency, while also jumpstarting innovation."
All the union leaders who supported Trump (like Sean O'Brien) should have to answer some painful questions about Trump rescinding collective bargaining rights for TSA agents.
[image or embed]
— Mike Nellis (@mikenellis.bsky.social) March 7, 2025 at 10:03 AM
As Huffpost labor reporter Dave Jamieson explained:
Workers at TSA, which Congress created in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, do not enjoy the same union rights as employees at most other federal agencies. Bargaining rights can essentially be extended or rescinded at the will of the administrator.
Those rights were introduced at TSA by former President Barack Obama and strengthened under former President Joe Biden. But now they are being tossed aside by Trump.
"Forty-seven thousands transportation security officers show up at over 400 airports across the country every single day to make sure our skies are safe for air travel," Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said in response to DHS announcement. "Many of them are veterans who went from serving their country in the armed forces to wearing a second uniform protecting the homeland and ensuring another terrorist attack like September 11 never happens again."
Kelley argued that President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "have violated these patriotic Americans' right to join a union in an unprovoked attack."
"They gave as a justification a completely fabricated claim about union officials—making clear this action has nothing to do with efficiency, safety, or homeland security," he said "This is merely a pretext for attacking the rights of regular working Americans across the country because they happen to belong to a union."
AFGE—which represents TSA security officers—has filed numerous lawsuits in a bid to thwart Trump administration efforts, led by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, to terminate thousands of federal workers and unilaterally shut down government agencies under the guise of improving outcomes.
"This is merely a pretext for attacking the rights of regular working Americans across the country because they happen to belong to a union."
"Our union has been out in front challenging this administration's unlawful actions targeting federal workers, both in the legal courts and in the court of public opinion," Kelley noted. "Now our TSA officers are paying the price with this clearly retaliatory action."
"Let's be clear: This is the beginning, not the end, of the fight for Americans' fundamental rights to join a union," Kelley stressed. "AFGE will not rest until the basic dignity and rights of the workers at TSA are acknowledged by the government once again."
AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler said in a statement: "TSA officers are the front-line defense at America's airports for the millions of families who travel by air each year. Canceling the collective bargaining agreement between TSA and its security officer workforce is dangerous union-busting ripped from the pages of Project 2025 that leaves the 47,000 officers who protect us without a voice."
"Through a union, TSA officers are empowered to improve work conditions and make air travel safer for passengers," Shuler added. "With this sweeping, illegal directive, the Trump administration is retaliating against unions for challenging its unlawful Department of Government Efficiency actions against America's federal workers in court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
South Carolina Carries Out 'Horrifying and Violent' Firing Squad Execution of Brad Sigmon
"By executing Brad Sigmon, South Carolina has also executed the possibility of redemption," said one critic. "Our state is declaring that no matter what you do to make up for your wrongdoing, we reserve the right to kill you."
Mar 08, 2025
South Carolina executed Brad Keith Sigmon by firing squad on Friday evening, drawing international attention to a method that hasn't been used for 15 years in the United States and prompting renewed calls to abolish capital punishment.
Sigmon, 67—who was convicted of beating his ex-girlfriend's parents, David and Gladys Larke, to death with a baseball bat in 2001—was shot by a firing squad consisting of three volunteers at the Broad River Correctional Institution in Columbia, the state capital, at 6:05 p.m. local time Friday, according to a statement from the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He was pronounced dead by a physician three minutes later.
Gerald "Bo" King, an attorney representing Sigmon, read his client's final statement shortly before his execution.
"I want my closing statement to be one of love and a calling to my fellow Christians to help us end the death penalty," Sigmon wrote. "An eye for an eye was used as justification to the jury for seeking the death penalty."
"At that time, I was too ignorant to know how wrong that was," he added. "Why? Because we no longer live under the Old Testament law but now live under the New Testament. Nowhere does God in the New Testament give man the authority to kill another man."
A hood was then placed over Sigmon's head and a bullseye over his heart. The three volunteers then fired their rifles from an opening in a wall 15 feet (4.5 meters) away.
"There was no warning or countdown," wrote witness and journalist Jeffrey Collins. "The abrupt crack of the rifles startled me. And the white target with the red bullseye that had been on his chest, standing out against his black prison jumpsuit, disappeared instantly as Sigmon's whole body flinched... A jagged red spot about the size of a small fist appeared where Sigmon was shot."
"I've now watched through glass and bars as 11 men were put to death at a South Carolina prison," Collins noted. "None of the previous 10 prepared me for watching the firing squad death of Brad Sigmon on Friday night."
King, who also witnessed Sigmon's killing, described the execution as "horrifying and violent."
"He chose the firing squad knowing that three bullets would shatter his bones and destroy his heart," said King. "But that was the only choice he had, after the state's three executions by lethal injection inflicted prolonged and potentially torturous deaths on men he loved like brothers."
"He chose the firing squad knowing that three bullets would shatter his bones and destroy his heart."
A desire to resume executions during a 10-year pause due to a shortage of lethal injection drugs prompted Republican state lawmakers to pass and GOP South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster in 2021 to sign legislation forcing the state's death row inmates to choose between the electric chair, firing squad, or lethal injection (if available) as their method of execution.
King said state officials failed to provide information about lethal injection drugs.
"Brad only wanted assurances that these drugs were not expired, or diluted, or spoiled—what any of us would want to know about the medication we take, or the food we eat, much less the means of our death," the attorney explained.
Sigmon's legal team had unsuccessfully argued that brain damage and mental illness should have spared him from execution.
Rev. Hillary Taylor, executive director of the advocacy group South Carolinians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (SCADP), said in a
statement Friday that "by executing Brad Sigmon, South Carolina has also executed the possibility of redemption."
"As Brad's spiritual advisor, I can personally attest to the fact that he is a different man today than the person he was more than 20 years ago, when he harmed the Larke family," she continued. "Our state is declaring that no matter what you do to make up for your wrongdoing, we reserve the right to kill you."
"But the question is not whether Brad deserved to die: The question is whether we deserved to kill," Taylor asserted. "In John 8, Jesus had very pointed instructions about which people can kill other people: 'Only those without sin can cast the first stone."
"The last time I checked, no person on this Earth fits that description, not even Gov. Henry McMaster, whose hardened heart remains the reason why executions continue in the first place," she added.
South Carolina has been executing condemned inmates at a rate described by ACLU of South Carolina communications director Paul Bowers as an "assembly line." The state has put four people to death since last September: Freddie Eugene Owens, killed by lethal injection last September 20; Richard Bernard Moore, killed by lethal injection (after changing his choice from firing squad) last November 1; Marion Bowman Jr., killed by lethal injection on January 31; and Sigmon.
State records show 28 inmates on South Carolina's death row.
Across the United States, there are five more executions scheduled this month, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
This is the first of six executions scheduled in six states this month. From the Death Penalty Information Center, one is scheduled for next week and then a horrifying four the week after that. This appears, however, to be more confluence than some big change. deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/u...
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) March 7, 2025 at 3:52 PM
Addressing the issue of capital punishment in South Carolina, SCADP's Taylor said Friday that "despite national and international media news coverage, most South Carolinians will go to bed tonight unaware that we have executed another person—let alone with a firing squad."
"That's how little this issue impacts our citizens," she continued. "South Carolina should be known by other states and countries for its radical care of its citizens. Instead, we are known for our state-sponsored violence."
"If executions made us safer, we would be the 9th-safest state in the country," Taylor argued. "But they don't, and we aren't. It is not the state leaders who will reap the consequences of the death penalty: it is the everyday South Carolina citizens themselves. As long as we have the death penalty, we will fail to address the true causes of violence, including poverty, abuse, and neglect."
South Carolina carries out execution by firing squad, first in USA since 2010. A reminder that these 6 MAGA men also intro'd a bill to codify abortion as murder—enabling the horrific scenario that a woman who gets an abortion could be executed by firing squad. www.qasimrashid.com/p/s-carolina...
[image or embed]
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@qasimrashid.com) March 8, 2025 at 5:38 AM
Yet instead of curtailing executions, many South Carolina Republicans want to expand the category of crimes that qualify for capital punishment. In 2023, more than 20 Republican state lawmakers backed a bill to make people who obtain abortion care eligible for execution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Trump Voter Is Having Second Thoughts After ICE Agents Detained Him at Gunpoint
"They'll only come for those bad people, right?" quipped one observer.
Mar 07, 2025
A naturalized U.S. citizen said Friday that he's questioning his vote for President Donald Trump after he was wrongfully swept up in the Republican president's immigration crackdown.
Jensy Machado told Telemundo 44's Rosbelis Quinoñez that he was driving to work Wednesday with two other men in Manassas, Virginia when they were stopped not far from his home by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, who surrounded his vehicle.
"And they just got out of the car with the guns in their hands and say, turn off the car, give me the keys, open the window, you know," Machado said. "Everything was really fast."
Machado said the officers told him the name of a man for whom they said they had a deportation order, and who had purportedly given Machado's home address. He said he offered to show his Virginia driver's license—a Real ID requiring proof of lawful status to acquire—but "they didn't ask for any ID."
"I was telling the officer, if I can give him ID, but he said just keep my hands up, not moving," Machado told Quiñonez. "After that, he told me to get out of the car and put the handcuffs on me. And then he went to me and said how did I get into this country and if I was waiting for a court date or if I have any case. And I told him I was an American citizen, and he looked at his other partner like, you know, smiling, like saying, can you believe this guy? Because he asked the other guy, 'Do you believe him?'"
Machado said he was uncuffed and immediately released after the officers saw his identification. The two men with him were taken into custody. Machado said he does not know why.
He also said the incident made him second-guess his vote for Trump—who promised to start "mass deportations" on "day one" of his presidency.
"I voted for Trump last election, but, because I thought it was going to be the things, you know, like, just go against criminals, not every Hispanic looking, like, that they will assume that we are all illegals," Machado explained.
It could have been worse. During Trump's first term, Francisco Erwin Galicia, a high school senior and U.S. citizen from Edinburgh, Texas was held by ICE for more than three weeks before he was finally released.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular