Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How the Return of Salmon to the Klamath River Shows Us What’s Possible in Wildlife Conservation

News Feed
Tuesday, November 26, 2024

November 26, 20244 min readHow the Return of Salmon to the Klamath River Shows Us What’s Possible in Wildlife ConservationOnce a tragic example of degraded wildlife habitat, the Klamath River’s dam removal demonstrates how people can halt the decline of, and even restore, wildlifeBy Jeff OppermanThe removal of the earthen Iron Gate Dam at the Klamath River in its final phase on August 14, 2024 in Hornbrook, California. Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesImagine standing on a riverbank as thousands of dead salmon float past, belly-up and rotting in the hot California air. That's the sight—and smell—that greeted people along the Klamath River in September 2002, when 35,000 fish perished there in the span of a few days. They were victims of warm water temperatures and low river levels, both caused by dams and diversions that altered the river’s flow.This dramatic loss isn’t unique: according to October’s 2024 Living Planet Report, of which I was a co-author, wildlife populations monitored around the world have declined on average by 73 percent in just the last half century. Freshwater species like salmon have suffered even greater losses. Farming and development, like dams, in natural habitats have driven these declines.But the Klamath story continues to be written. Just a little over two decades on from the massive fish kill, the Klamath became the site of the largest dam removal project in history. Since removal of the lower four dams on the river was completed last month, salmon have surged upstream to parts of the river where they haven’t been seen for more than a century. On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.No longer is the Klamath River a tragic example of the global nature crisis; instead, its restoration serves as an inspiring story of how people can work together to repair wildlife habitats. This huge turnaround was made possible through collaboration and unwavering commitment—especially by the region’s Indigenous people. It is an example we can learn from and start replicating across the world.The scale of that global need for restoration is daunting. The alarming results in the Living Planet Report are derived from the Living Planet Index (LPI), a set of statistics developed by the Zoological Society of London. The LPI provides a broad view of wildlife health across the planet, drawing on data from nearly 35,000 populations of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians, across more than 5,000 species. It can also be used to track specific groups, such as migratory fish—from tiny gobies to giant catfish—which have experienced a staggering 81 percent decline since 1970.Halting—and then reversing—the alarming downward trends in fish and other wildlife populations will require major shifts in how we produce energy and food, and how we implement conservation. The Klamath shows that those shifts are within reach.Biologists capture juvenile Coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in Wooley Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River which is one of the largest tributaries to the Klamath River on August 15, 2024. The Coho and Chinook are tagged with a monitoring device and also fin clipped for a genetic study.Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesThe Klamath was once the third most productive river for salmon on the west coast of the United States. Its migratory fish were the primary food—and central to the culture—of the Karuk, Yurok, Klamath and other tribes. But, beginning in the 1920s, four hydropower dams were built on the river, blocking salmon from swimming upstream to spawn and limiting them to a reduced stretch of the river. The expansion of irrigated farming further stressed the salmon through reduced flows and high water temperatures—the factors that caused the 2002 fish kill—and the runoff of chemicals and nutrients.But from that low point, the opening for recovery emerged. At the heart of the Klamath’s stunning turnaround was the unwavering dedication of the tribes to restore their salmon. Their long-neglected legal rights, cultural commitment, and steadfast efforts made river restoration possible. Collectively, their breakthroughs demonstrate that implementing conservation at the scale necessary to restore wildlife will require a diversity of both leadership and strategy.A man rides past an "Undam the Klamath" mural on the Orleans Market on Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2023 in Orleans, CA.Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesFirst, regulators, conservation groups and tribes negotiated agreements with farmers to reduce agricultural runoff, improve water quality, and balance irrigation demands with water levels in the basin’s lakes and wetlands. That led to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, signed in 2010. That agreement also set the stage for removal of the four hydropower dams, an outcome the tribes had been pursuing for decades.Another catalyst for removal was the legal requirement that the owner of the dams, PacifiCorp, renew the dams’ licenses, which were set to expire in 2006. In the U.S., hydropower project owners must periodically apply for new licenses through a process that considers options for reducing the projects’ social and environmental impacts. For the Klamath dams, regulatory agencies recommended that license renewal would require the addition of fish ladders to allow salmon to swim above the dams— construction projects that would have been prohibitively expensive. Ultimately PacifiCorp signed a settlement agreement with the tribes, agencies and conservation groups to remove the four dams, which started late last year.The removal of four hydroelectric dams may seem like a major loss of renewable energy. Thanks to California’s rapid expansion of wind and solar energy generation projects, however, the loss of the Klamath dams—which provided just 2 percent of PacifiCorp’s generation capacity—will be offset many times over. In fact, California’s new renewable capacity added during the dam removal process will be nearly 20 times greater than that of the Klamath dams.Restoration of the Klamath clearly demonstrates the potential for leadership and resource management by Indigenous people—whose lands encompass 40 percent of the world’s remaining natural areas—and whose efforts will be central to effective conservation in the 21st century.Further, restoration was only possible through a diverse set of strategies. For centuries, nature conservation has been synonymous with setting aside large tracts of land in national parks or wildlife refuges. The Klamath Basin encompasses six national wildlife refuges, two national parks, and wilderness areas—and approximately two thirds of the basin is in public land, mostly national forests. And yet the salmon—one of the basin’s most important environmental and cultural resources—still found themselves on the ropes. Restoring that resource required agreements on water use, agricultural management and dam removal to restore river connectivity.Just such examples are sorely needed. In November representatives from 196 countries wrapped up the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Colombia and, while some important agreements were reached, much of the work of setting targets and designing strategies for conserving and restoring nature remains to be done. Reversing the losses of wildlife worldwide will require a diverse set of strategies. Protected areas will remain important, but so will transformations in how we produce energy and food and implement conservation. And while “transformation” may sound daunting, the Klamath’s remarkable turnaround demonstrates that the recovery of nature remains in reach.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Once a tragic example of degraded wildlife habitat, the Klamath River’s dam removal demonstrates how people can halt the decline of, and even restore, wildlife

November 26, 2024

4 min read

How the Return of Salmon to the Klamath River Shows Us What’s Possible in Wildlife Conservation

Once a tragic example of degraded wildlife habitat, the Klamath River’s dam removal demonstrates how people can halt the decline of, and even restore, wildlife

By Jeff Opperman

A view of the partially dismantled Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River as a group of people on a hillside above watch.

The removal of the earthen Iron Gate Dam at the Klamath River in its final phase on August 14, 2024 in Hornbrook, California.

Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Imagine standing on a riverbank as thousands of dead salmon float past, belly-up and rotting in the hot California air. That's the sight—and smell—that greeted people along the Klamath River in September 2002, when 35,000 fish perished there in the span of a few days. They were victims of warm water temperatures and low river levels, both caused by dams and diversions that altered the river’s flow.

This dramatic loss isn’t unique: according to October’s 2024 Living Planet Report, of which I was a co-author, wildlife populations monitored around the world have declined on average by 73 percent in just the last half century. Freshwater species like salmon have suffered even greater losses. Farming and development, like dams, in natural habitats have driven these declines.

But the Klamath story continues to be written. Just a little over two decades on from the massive fish kill, the Klamath became the site of the largest dam removal project in history. Since removal of the lower four dams on the river was completed last month, salmon have surged upstream to parts of the river where they haven’t been seen for more than a century.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


No longer is the Klamath River a tragic example of the global nature crisis; instead, its restoration serves as an inspiring story of how people can work together to repair wildlife habitats. This huge turnaround was made possible through collaboration and unwavering commitment—especially by the region’s Indigenous people. It is an example we can learn from and start replicating across the world.

The scale of that global need for restoration is daunting. The alarming results in the Living Planet Report are derived from the Living Planet Index (LPI), a set of statistics developed by the Zoological Society of London. The LPI provides a broad view of wildlife health across the planet, drawing on data from nearly 35,000 populations of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians, across more than 5,000 species. It can also be used to track specific groups, such as migratory fish—from tiny gobies to giant catfish—which have experienced a staggering 81 percent decline since 1970.

Halting—and then reversing—the alarming downward trends in fish and other wildlife populations will require major shifts in how we produce energy and food, and how we implement conservation. The Klamath shows that those shifts are within reach.

Biologists in wetsuits standing in Wooley Creek hold juvenile Coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout up above a net in the water for the camera

Biologists capture juvenile Coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in Wooley Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River which is one of the largest tributaries to the Klamath River on August 15, 2024. The Coho and Chinook are tagged with a monitoring device and also fin clipped for a genetic study.

Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The Klamath was once the third most productive river for salmon on the west coast of the United States. Its migratory fish were the primary food—and central to the culture—of the Karuk, Yurok, Klamath and other tribes. But, beginning in the 1920s, four hydropower dams were built on the river, blocking salmon from swimming upstream to spawn and limiting them to a reduced stretch of the river. The expansion of irrigated farming further stressed the salmon through reduced flows and high water temperatures—the factors that caused the 2002 fish kill—and the runoff of chemicals and nutrients.

But from that low point, the opening for recovery emerged. At the heart of the Klamath’s stunning turnaround was the unwavering dedication of the tribes to restore their salmon. Their long-neglected legal rights, cultural commitment, and steadfast efforts made river restoration possible. Collectively, their breakthroughs demonstrate that implementing conservation at the scale necessary to restore wildlife will require a diversity of both leadership and strategy.

A man rides a motor bike past a mural that reads, "Undam the Klamath," advocating for the removal of the dams on the Klamath River with imagery depicting the past industry along the river, the restoration, and the future history of the river after removal. In the center Northern California Native people people perform a stomp dance to bring balance to the world

A man rides past an "Undam the Klamath" mural on the Orleans Market on Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2023 in Orleans, CA.

Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

First, regulators, conservation groups and tribes negotiated agreements with farmers to reduce agricultural runoff, improve water quality, and balance irrigation demands with water levels in the basin’s lakes and wetlands. That led to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, signed in 2010. That agreement also set the stage for removal of the four hydropower dams, an outcome the tribes had been pursuing for decades.

Another catalyst for removal was the legal requirement that the owner of the dams, PacifiCorp, renew the dams’ licenses, which were set to expire in 2006. In the U.S., hydropower project owners must periodically apply for new licenses through a process that considers options for reducing the projects’ social and environmental impacts. For the Klamath dams, regulatory agencies recommended that license renewal would require the addition of fish ladders to allow salmon to swim above the dams— construction projects that would have been prohibitively expensive. Ultimately PacifiCorp signed a settlement agreement with the tribes, agencies and conservation groups to remove the four dams, which started late last year.

The removal of four hydroelectric dams may seem like a major loss of renewable energy. Thanks to California’s rapid expansion of wind and solar energy generation projects, however, the loss of the Klamath dams—which provided just 2 percent of PacifiCorp’s generation capacity—will be offset many times over. In fact, California’s new renewable capacity added during the dam removal process will be nearly 20 times greater than that of the Klamath dams.

Restoration of the Klamath clearly demonstrates the potential for leadership and resource management by Indigenous people—whose lands encompass 40 percent of the world’s remaining natural areas—and whose efforts will be central to effective conservation in the 21st century.

Further, restoration was only possible through a diverse set of strategies. For centuries, nature conservation has been synonymous with setting aside large tracts of land in national parks or wildlife refuges. The Klamath Basin encompasses six national wildlife refuges, two national parks, and wilderness areas—and approximately two thirds of the basin is in public land, mostly national forests. And yet the salmon—one of the basin’s most important environmental and cultural resources—still found themselves on the ropes. Restoring that resource required agreements on water use, agricultural management and dam removal to restore river connectivity.

Just such examples are sorely needed. In November representatives from 196 countries wrapped up the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Colombia and, while some important agreements were reached, much of the work of setting targets and designing strategies for conserving and restoring nature remains to be done. Reversing the losses of wildlife worldwide will require a diverse set of strategies. Protected areas will remain important, but so will transformations in how we produce energy and food and implement conservation. And while “transformation” may sound daunting, the Klamath’s remarkable turnaround demonstrates that the recovery of nature remains in reach.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

10m trees to be planted in US to replace ones destroyed by hurricanes

Arbor Day Foundation non-profit to plant trees in six of the worst-hit states over the next four yearsSome costs of the recently ended supercharged 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, those that can be quantified at least, are astounding.A succession of storms that ravaged large areas of the US killed at least 375 people, the most in the mainland US since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Some estimates pegged damage and economic loss at $500bn. Continue reading...

Some costs of the recently ended supercharged 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, those that can be quantified at least, are astounding.A succession of storms that ravaged large areas of the US killed at least 375 people, the most in the mainland US since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Some estimates pegged damage and economic loss at $500bn.Another eye-catching figure is 10m, which is the number of trees the non-profit Arbor Day Foundation (ADF) is planning to plant in six of the worst-hit states over the next four years to replace those destroyed by the major hurricanes Beryl, Debby, Helene and Milton, and other cyclones, in the season that concluded on 30 November.The group says it’s impossible to know exactly how many trees were lost, but the restoration program that will be executed in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, with assistance from state and local governments, corporate sponsors, community groups and individual volunteers, will be the most ambitious undertaking of its more than 50-year existence.ADF has worked previously in other affected areas, most recently with partners along Florida’s Gulf coast, Panhandle and in Miami after Hurricanes Irma and Michael in 2017 and 2018 respectively, but nothing on this scale.“The emotion that you see from people when they get to get a tree, to take home to plant, to be an active part of recovery, bringing life and hope and healing back to their neighborhoods and to their community is inspiring,” said Dan Lambe, ADF’s chief executive.“What’s so cool about it is it’s every different part of the community you could imagine, every demographic, every age category. People are just so excited to be contributing to the recovery.“And beyond the emotional side of it, in these cities, these communities and these forests, trees are not a nice-to-have, they are a must-have.“From extreme heat, from biodiversity challenges, and ecosystem challenges to the just broader resilience and readiness for the next storm, trees just do so much for us. So it’s both an emotional and an environmental recovery, and we’re proud to get to be a part.”One of the largest areas of focus will be Florida’s heavily populated Tampa Bay region. Although it escaped direct hits from any of the state’s record-tying three landfalling major hurricanes this year, Debby, Helene and Milton, the storms’ giant wind fields still caused severe impacts.“I was born and raised here, and I’ve never before seen such devastation, so many trees down,” said Debra Evenson, executive director of the Keep Tampa Bay Beautiful environmental group that has partnered with ADF to identify the greatest areas of need and set up a replanting schedule.“They covered the streets. Just on our property, at our office, we probably had five trees down. The devastation was everywhere. It wasn’t just one specific area, it hit all of Tampa Bay, just thousands and thousands of trees.”Evenson’s group can count on more than 25,000 volunteers to assist with the project, which she expects to begin before the end of this year with community giveaways, and ramp up after new year with planting days. Schools, lower-income neighborhoods and community spaces will receive early attention.“It’s like, OK, what type of trees do we want to get? We can plant trees in parks and rights of way, but right now it’s like we really want to give trees to the community to help with the canopy,” she said.“It’s in the community, in people’s homes, where so many were lost. They’re crepe myrtles, live oak and magnolia trees … you don’t really understand everything the trees provide until they’re gone. It’s not just air quality, it’s reducing stormwater runoff, it’s providing shade that regulates temperature. We’re in Florida, it’s 100F sometimes, and it’s like ‘why is my electric bill so high?’skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“It’s because you’re missing your shade trees now. So these trees will be substantial to the community and help with not just all of that, but the conservation and the natural beauty.”Evenson said bringing fruit trees back to deprived areas would also be a priority.“We go into areas that are food deserts, where they don’t have the funds to replant these types of big trees that grow and give shade and bear fruit. To them, this is life-changing,” she said.Lambe said Asheville, the historic North Carolina city flooded and torn apart by Hurricane Helene, was another area of great need.“We’ve already been distributing trees with community leaders there, to neighborhoods that are ready to replant,” he said.“It was shocking that a community like Asheville was being impacted by a hurricane, and they don’t have a lot of experience with recovery. We’ve been able to take lessons from elsewhere and remind partners that first of all you take an inventory, do an assessment, don’t rush the restoration.“Do it when it’s right, and know that the Arbor Day Foundation is going to be there to help with those recovery efforts as a long-term commitment, because we want to give confidence to those communities that we’re ready to help.”

English wildlife ‘could be disappearing in the dark’ due to lack of scrutiny

Conservationists issue warning as figures show three-quarters of SSSI sites have had no recent assessments Conservationists have said wildlife could be “disappearing in the dark” after figures showed that three-quarters of England’s most precious habitats, wildlife and natural features have had no recent assessment of their condition.The warning follows the publication of figures covering assessments of protected natural sites known as sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) in the last five years. SSSIs are legally protected because they contain special features such as threatened habitats or rare species, and together they cover more than 1.1m hectares (2.7m acres), about 8% of England’s land area. Continue reading...

Conservationists have said wildlife could be “disappearing in the dark” after figures showed that three-quarters of England’s most precious habitats, wildlife and natural features have had no recent assessment of their condition.The warning follows the publication of figures covering assessments of protected natural sites known as sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) in the last five years. SSSIs are legally protected because they contain special features such as threatened habitats or rare species, and together they cover more than 1.1m hectares (2.7m acres), about 8% of England’s land area.Nearly two-fifths of the habitats and other features for which SSSIs are protected were in an unfavourable condition, according to figures from the conservation agency Natural England.They also show that only 3,384 – or about 25% – of features had been assessed for their condition since the start of 2019 up to last month. It leaves 10,148, or 75%, without an up-to-date assessment of how they are faring.The figures, revealed after a request from PA Media, were described by conservationists as a reminder of the under-resourced state of environmental watchdogs.SSSIs are integral to Britain’s international commitment to protect 30% of its land and seas for nature by 2030, a pledge made by Boris Johnson as prime minister and sometimes called the 30x30 commitment.Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “The protected site network is critical natural infrastructure supporting wildlife, health and wellbeing, and a resilient economy. But with over three-quarters of sites not inspected in the last five years, regulators will have no idea whether they are in good condition and the government won’t know where it should be targeting its efforts in order to reach critical 2030 targets.“Wildlife could be disappearing in the dark while ecosystems break down. It’s like shutting the door on a new power plant and not visiting for a decade.”More than 5,000 SSSI features, about 39% of the total, were in an unfavourable state in their last assessment, which could have been well before 2019. Of those, 10% were declining and 22% recovering.About 40% of features were in a favourable condition, more than a fifth were classed as “not recorded” due to incomplete data, and less than 0.5% had been destroyed.A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Protected sites are at the heart of our vision for making space for rare habitats and threatened species to thrive as well as green spaces for us all to enjoy. It’s why this government has wasted no time in establishing a rapid review of our plan to deliver on our legally binding targets for the environment, including measures to improve the condition of protected sites. We will deliver a new statutory plan that will help restore our natural environment.”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionNatural England is developing a long-term programme to determine when SSSIs need to be assessed, as well as improving monitoring with remote sensing technology and greater use of data.The amount of land that is “effectively protected” for nature in England has declined to just 2.93%, despite government promises to conserve 30% of it by 2030, according to research published in October.The land figure was found to have been falling owing to declines in quality of SSSIs, which are changing because of the climate crisis, water pollution and overgrazing.

Patagonia’s Ties to a Dark-Money Operation Bankrolling Democratic Candidates

A mysterious group linked to Patagonia has been accused of making what appear to be illegal “straw donor” contributions. The post Patagonia’s Ties to a Dark-Money Operation Bankrolling Democratic Candidates appeared first on The Intercept.

The newest front in dark money’s war on election transparency shares an address with Patagonia, according to a new complaint. The outdoor clothing company known for its high quality, high prices, and liberal leanings may have funded illegal campaign donations over the summer, a watchdog group alleged this month. The Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that a mysterious corporation made $1.4 million in what appear to be illegal “straw donor” contributions to funds supporting Democratic candidates within days of its creation. The ultimate source of the money was likely Patagonia, the Campaign Legal Center says. The complaint is the second of its kind this year involving Patagonia, raising fresh questions about whether left-leaning donors at ideological odds with “dark-money” groups on the right should resort to similar tactics. For Saurav Ghosh, the director of federal campaign finance reform at the nonpartisan, nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, the donations also highlight the need for swifter action from the FEC, which has yet to take action against another alleged “straw donor” that made donations to a right-wing Senate candidate two years ago. “The amounts of money involved, the brazenness of setting up a company and making a seven-figure contribution almost immediately — it shows that this tactic is alive and well, and I don’t see any reason for that to change unless the FEC starts enforcing the law and dishing out penalties,” Ghosh said. Ties to Patagonia Neither Patagonia nor the entity in question, Save our Home Planet Action, responded to requests for comment. But to hear the Campaign Legal Center tell it, linking them together was a straightforward detective job. Save Our Home Planet Action was incorporated in Delaware on August 6. Within 10 days, it began doling out money to campaign organizations: $450,000 to the Senate Democratic campaign fund, $425,000 to the League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund, $450,000 to House Democrats, $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Kamala Harris, and $50,000 to a committee supporting Democrats in state races. Why would a newborn company go on a campaign spending spree? Ghosh alleges that the answer lies in a web of evidence tying Save Our Home Planet Action to Patagonia. Save Our Home Planet Action uses the same mailing address, and its name also matches a slogan that Patagonia has used in marketing materials and on clothing for years. “These circumstances plainly suggest that Patagonia and/or one or more of its owners, executives, or employees may, in fact, be the unknown true source(s) that provided sufficient funds to SOHPA for it to contribute over $1.4 million while concealing their identities,” the Campaign Legal Center complaint states. Corporate filings in California unearthed by The Intercept indicate that Save Our Home Planet Action has the same CEO, Greg Curtis, as the Holdfast Collective, a nonprofit organization that owns 98 percent of Patagonia. Curtis, who did not respond to a request for comment, previously worked as corporate counsel for Patagonia. The Holdfast Collective was created under the direction of Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard in 2022. Using what the trade publication Inside Philanthropy called “a complex and unconventional structure,” Holdfast and a network of affiliated trusts redistribute money earned from Patagonia sales to environmental causes. “That might work for environmental causes, but it undermines the transparency the law requires for money spent influencing elections.” The California filings reinforce the theory that Patagonia is the ultimate source of the contributions, Ghosh said. “Curtis’s involvement here, alongside his role as the CEO of the Holdfast Collective, is interesting, since it suggests that SOHPA was designed to operate in a similar vein — namely, the distribution of corporate profits to finance philanthropy. That might work for environmental causes, but it undermines the transparency the law requires for money spent influencing elections,” Ghosh said. Steering corporate profits to super PACs and campaign committees aimed at boosting environmental causes would not run afoul of federal laws. The nonprofits associated with Patagonia, which are known as social welfare groups and are legally allowed to make campaign donations, have disclosed spending money on conservation projects and even on a Democratic super PAC before. But using what are known as “straw donors” — people or corporations designed to mask the original source of funds — to make campaign contributions would be illegal. Such entities often argue that they are legitimate corporations that just happened to have enough money to make big donations, Ghosh said. According to the complaint, there is “reason to believe” that “unidentified person(s)” violated straw donor laws, and that Save Our Home Planet Action did the same when it “knowingly permitted its name to be used to effect contributions of one or more other persons in its own name.” The complaint says the FEC “should find reason to believe” that straw donor laws were violated “and conduct an immediate investigation” under its enforcement powers. A Growing Pattern? In its complaint with the FEC, the Campaign Legal Center notes that Save Our Home Planet Action does not appear to maintain a website or a social media presence, leaving the reason for its creation something of a mystery. Patagonia has long worn its politics on its sleeves — and once on a tag stitched into the rear of a pair of shorts, which read “Vote the assholes out.” In the case of Save Our Home Planet Action, however, much of the money went to committees such as the House Majority PAC and the Senate Majority PAC, which supported some candidates with views at odds with the environmental movement, such as supporters of fracking in Pennsylvania and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Meanwhile, the nonprofit that owns most of Patagonia, the Holdfast Collective, was already under scrutiny in the form of a February FEC complaint from the conservative group Americans for Public Trust for allegedly misidentifying the source of political contributions. Patagonia has previously stated that the errors in that case could have been on the part of the entities that received the money. Caitlin Sutherland, that group’s executive director, told The Intercept she was still waiting for a determination from the FEC. The election commission, which is supposed to act as watchdog for violations of campaign finance law, is deadlocked along partisan lines and notoriously reluctant to take action. These days, many of the biggest donations to federal campaigns are routed through what are known as “dark-money” groups, which take advantage of the federal tax code to wrap their donors in anonymity. Although liberals have been far more critical of developments in campaign finance that opened the spigots on corporate spending, there are dark-money groups operating from both the left and the right to influence American politics, ranging from the Koch brothers network to George Soros. “These corporate entities and other ‘social welfare’ nonprofits have extremely smart lawyers to figure out how to game the system,” said Aaron Scherb, the senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonprofit group pushing for more disclosure. “That, combined with an FEC in which half the commissioners refuse to enforce disclosure laws, ends up yielding a very unhealthy system in which voters can’t fully understand in many cases who is trying to influence their votes.” While the Campaign Legal Center believes alleged “straw donor” groups should be investigated because the donations appear to be illegal, the FEC has been slow to crack down on them. Two years ago, Ghosh’s group filed an FEC complaint against an alleged straw donor called the Leadership Action Fund, which sent more than $600,000 to a Republican Senate candidate in Oklahoma. The Campaign Legal Center is still waiting on a response, Ghosh said. Increasingly, he believes, corporations are making a “risk calculation” of whether to follow the law or to violate it. “There’s the upside, in their mind, of not disclosing their political spending, and then the potential downside, which is really quite minimal. These schemes in most cases will either go undetected or unpunished,” he said. The post Patagonia’s Ties to a Dark-Money Operation Bankrolling Democratic Candidates appeared first on The Intercept.

This Year in Conservation Science: Elephants, Sharks, Mountains, Bees, and More

We asked conservation researchers to send us their best papers of 2024. They surprised us with some powerful and important science. The post This Year in Conservation Science: Elephants, Sharks, Mountains, Bees, and More appeared first on The Revelator.

Every month scientific journals publish hundreds of new papers about endangered species and wildlife conservation. It’s a firehose of information in a world that feels increasingly in flames. That’s why I started writing this column. “This Month in Conservation Science” is an opportunity to sort through some of that critical research and filter it for an audience who can put these scientific discoveries to good use. Our first few columns looked at papers published over specific four-week periods. This month, as we all wrap up 2024, we asked researchers to send us their best or favorite papers of the past year. We received submissions that offer hope, guidance, analysis, and insight into emerging threats. Stuart Pimm, president of Saving Nature, recommended a paper he and his colleagues published in Science Advances revealing surprising news for elephants. He wrote: “The public may think that elephants in the African savannah are in freefall. In fact, over the last quarter century, their numbers have held their own across Southern Africa (mid-Tanzania southwards), an area that holds three-quarters of them. The paper shows what strategies led to this success and recommends that connecting now-isolated populations will be vital for future progress.” Sukakpak Mountain. Photo: Bob Wick/BLM Aerin Jacob, director of science and research at Nature Conservancy of Canada, sent a coauthored paper from Conservation Biology about mountains — a habitat type that deserves more attention. “People often think that mountain ecosystems are so rugged and inaccessible that they don’t need habitat protection, but that’s not true,” she wrote. “We studied six major mountain regions around the world and found that on average half of them are as modified as the rest of the world; two-thirds of them don’t (yet) meet the 30×30 global protection target; and existing protected areas don’t include the vast majority of mountain ecosystem types. Mountains are super-important for biodiversity, ecosystem function, and the benefits people get from nature. We ignore them at our peril.” Speaking of 30×30, marine expert Stacy Jupiter with the Wildlife Conservation Society recommended a paper in Marine Policy, cowritten by two other WCS specialists, that she tells us sought to “identify highly productive marine areas around the world to help the world achieve the protection of at least 30% of the planet by 2030. This analysis adds to the current body of knowledge by exploring the notion of marine productivity as an enabling condition that drives ecological integrity in marine ecosystems. It’s a critically important feature to inform and complement future conservation efforts.” An endangered Caribbean reef shark. Photo: Brian Gratwicke (CC BY 2.0) Sticking with the ocean, shark scientist David Shiffman (a frequent Revelator contributor) sent a commentary he published in Integrative & Comparative Biology about how misinformation shapes the public’s perspective on shark conservation. “This invited commentary summarizes the last decade of my research into public misunderstanding of ocean conservation issues,” he wrote. “In a career sitting in rooms with global science and conservation experts and a career talking to the interested public about how to save the ocean, I’ve noticed something striking: both groups talk about the same issues, but they talk about them very differently. This inspired a decade-long research project looking at where concerned members of the public learn about ocean conservation threats and their policy solutions, and what type of information is spread through those information pathways. It turns out that nearly every information pathway is flooded with misunderstandings if not straight-up pseudoscience, a big problem as we work to save endangered species and key ecosystems.”   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Charles Eutsler (@charles.eutsler) Sharks get a lot of press, but many other species fly under the radar. Wildlife trade researcher Lalita Gomez shared a Discover Animals paper cowritten with frequent Revelator contributor Chris Shepherd about a cat-like mammal called the binturong that faces an underappreciated threat. “This little creature is currently being traded under the radar in large numbers for the pet trade, which is ridiculous considering its vulnerable status,” she wrote. “The online trade of live animals is also out of hand and with this paper we push for stronger regulation of social media platforms that perpetuate the trade.” Shepherd, meanwhile, was the senior author of a paper in the European Journal of Wildlife Research that examined Canada’s role in international wildlife trade. “Wildlife trade is embedded in Canada’s history, dating back to the early fur traders, evolving to include multiple commodities such as the contemporary fur industry and the thriving pet trade of today,” he wrote. “Considering recent reports of animals legally and illegally imported into Canada and the potential threats of wildlife trade studied elsewhere, wildlife trade may pose risks to Canada’s natural heritage, biodiversity, biosecurity, and animal welfare. Our review underscores the need to enhance academic knowledge and policy tools to effectively identify and address trade issues concerning Canadian and nonnative wildlife.” Continuing the theme of wildlife trade, Neil D’Cruze shared a Journal of Environmental Management paper from several authors at World Animal Protection and John Jay College of Criminal Justice that “highlights significant gaps in global wildlife trade laws despite a century of growing legislation. Examining 11 biodiversity-rich countries, the research found that the Global Biodiversity Index does not correlate with the scope of wildlife trade laws. Legislation is unevenly distributed across trade stages, with animal welfare notably underrepresented, particularly in captive breeding and farming. Our study urges the alignment of national and international regulations to address critical gaps, protect biodiversity, and prioritise animal welfare, emphasising its importance for public health and environmental sustainability.” Moving on to a different topic, let’s talk about the damaging ways people move through the natural world. William Laurance, distinguished research professor at James Cook University, shared a Nature paper led by one of his Ph.D. students about ghost roads — often-illegal roads that don’t exist on maps but pose a serious danger to ecosystems. “Globally, ghost roads are one of the most serious, understudied threats to ecosystems and biodiversity — especially in poorer nations that harbor much of Earth’s biodiversity,” he wrote. We also heard from Dr. Sara Cannon with the Centre for Indigenous Fisheries at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, who was the lead author of a paper in Facets that argued the open data movement is putting too much pressure on Indigenous people to make their scientific data public. “This paper highlights why Indigenous data sovereignty is crucial for addressing environmental challenges like climate change and cumulative effects on ecosystems, particularly salmon-bearing watersheds in British Columbia,” she writes. “It underscores the need for respectful collaborations between Indigenous knowledge-holders and external researchers, offering actionable steps to honor Indigenous data sovereignty and improve data management practices. By reading this paper, the public can better understand how Indigenous data sovereignty supports ecosystem resilience and empowers Indigenous communities to maintain sovereignty over their territories and knowledge.”   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Wildlife Conservation Society Mongolia (@wcs.mongolia) Samantha Strindberg of the WCS submitted two papers, both authored with expansive teams, that showcased the value of large, long-term conservation monitoring programs. The first, published in Oryx, assessed the population size of the Mongolian gazelle. “The Eastern Steppe of Mongolia harbors the largest remaining temperate grassland on the planet and is home to millions of Mongolian gazelles,” she wrote. “This is the first comprehensive assessment of this species that roams over 750,000 square kilometers, predominantly (91%) in the Mongolian open plains, and also Russia and China. It highlights the importance of comprehensive monitoring surveys and the value of cross-border collaboration to provide important information for conservation of this species in the long-term.” The second, published in Primates, examined great ape surveys: “The Republic of Congo expanded the Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park to include the gorilla-rich, previously unlogged forest of the Djéké Triangle. These survey results for western lowland gorilla and central chimpanzee are part of a 25-year history of globally important scientific research on the ecology and behavior of western lowland gorillas. Empirical evidence of the environmental value and strategic conservation importance supported the inclusion of the Djéké Triangle into the NNNP with long-term monitoring results also informing best-practice standards and ape tourism certification.” Finally, this month, we heard from Liber Ero Postdoctoral Fellow Jayme Lewthwaite, who recommended a paper she didn’t work on as one of the best she’s seen in 2024. Published in Nature Sustainability, lead author Laura Melissa Guzman and colleagues examined the effects of pesticides on wild bee distributions in the United States. “This paper is so important because it’s the first national assessment of how pesticide use is affecting native bees across their ranges,” Lewthwaite wrote. “While overall pesticide use has plateaued in the U.S., Guzman et al. show that the novel pesticides that are increasingly being favored (such as neonicotinoids) are extremely deadly to native insects, perhaps more than any of their predecessors. While this was suspected and shown through a few studies in the UK (where they were subsequently banned), this is the first study to do so in the U.S. on such a large taxonomic and spatial scale. We should all be worried about the decline of native bees because they are by far the most effective pollinators out of any group, and this has important food security implications.” We’ll return to our regular format next month, which will link to papers published between Dec. 15, 2024, and Jan. 15, 2025. We’re happy to hear from any author or team with a new paper coming out in a peer-reviewed journal or other publication during that timeframe, especially if you’re from the Global South or an institution without much public-relations support. For consideration in a future column, drop us a link at tips@therevelator.org and use the subject line TMICS. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button The post This Year in Conservation Science: Elephants, Sharks, Mountains, Bees, and More appeared first on The Revelator.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.