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.

If Corporations Are People, Then Animals Should Be Too

News Feed
Thursday, May 2, 2024

The terrifying truth of the climate and mass extinction crises is that we don’t understand all that we stand to lose. And without extraordinary acts of imagination and foresight, as a society, we won’t understand what’s being lost till it’s too late—at which time we’ll have to look back at what we might have done with a heartbreak and remorse that have no remedy. So we need to protect the living world with the best tool we have: the law.Evolution is slow, while the climate is changing at a breakneck pace. For organisms like elephants and whales, who can live as long as we do, or trees, who live much longer, both the path to potential adaptation to this rapidly morphing planet and the path to our understanding may stretch beyond any time frame that could help us to save them before the clock strikes midnight. Small animals, whose lives and reproductive cycles tend to be shorter, can be more readily studied across generations. Some researchers have seen signs of resilience: Mother zebra finches in Australia, one scientist found, warn the embryos inside their eggs of warming conditions outside by uttering certain calls. The chicks those embryos hatch into have lower birth weights than those who weren’t exposed to the mothers’ calls, which helps the young birds stay cool in hot weather. Lizards in Miami appeared to lower their cold-tolerance thresholds in response to a cold snap in 2020, which might defend against future environmental fluctuations; certain male dragonflies grow paler in warmer weather, losing some of the bright ornamentation that attracts females but making them less vulnerable to overheating.But examples of seemingly speedy accommodation are tiny flags fluttering on a battlefield where the overwhelming outlook for biodiversity is catastrophic. Instead of shifting gradually over thousands or even millions of years, environments are being transformed so fast that adaptive mechanisms don’t have the opportunity to kick in. In many cases, due to human-caused habitat loss and other pressures, of which the unstable climate is a massive threat multiplier, strategies that may have saved other life forms historically are no longer available to them: Pikas, for instance—cute little squeaking mammals native to western North America and Asia—may be able to move up a mountain to reach colder climes as the lower elevations get too hot, but if they reach the peak and it gets hot too, well … there’s nothing left for that wingless pika but the bare blue sky. The desert where I live is getting too hot even for arid-adapted wildlife—a lizard that had thrived in Arizona’s Mule Mountains for three million years is now newly believed extinct, and plants from the small acuña cactus to the Seussian Joshua tree are struggling to hang on.Cases abound of creatures and plants whose biological profiles appear to be setting them up for climate-driven oblivion: Crocodilians and most turtles don’t have sex chromosomes, so whether they’re born male or female depends on the temperature of the sand surrounding their eggs. A study of green sea turtles in the Great Barrier Reef in 2018 found that 99 percent of hatchlings were female, as opposed to 87 percent of adults—a ratio that could mean there already aren’t enough males for reproduction. Reef-building corals with low resistance to bleaching and death, such as staghorn and elkhorn, are at extremely high risk, and though corals occupy less than 1 percent of the ocean floor, they’re home to one-quarter of global marine diversity. Shrimplike krill, whose Antarctic habitat is projected to shrink up to 80 percent by 2100, feed most of the larger denizens of the Southern Ocean, from fish to seabirds like penguins to seals and cetaceans, and account for 96 percent of some species’ diets. The total biomass of krill is greater than that of any other multicellular animal, and these animals are a key storage bank for carbon dioxide. The humble freshwater mussels who make up the most endangered group of U.S. organisms help keep our rivers clean, but warming waters magnify the myriad threats they already face; three-quarters of flowering plants depend on pollinators, currently in decline around the globe, who happen to be critical to one out of three bites of our food. And though some plant species can migrate to escape inhospitable conditions, that migration occurs—since individuals don’t move—over generations via seed dispersal. The list of our dependencies on the other beings with whom we’ve coevolved is nearly infinite. So visionary policy is called for to protect those other beings and systems—not only for their intrinsic and cultural value but because they’re our life support, worth far more to our continued welfare intact than liquidated for short-term profit. If the goal is a livable future, for which we need to achieve a paradigm shift from exploitation to conservation, the services these networks of life supply need to be fully and properly valued. Their right to exist has to be enshrined in law.Both domestically and internationally, species and ecosystems need to be endowed with legal standing to give local and native stewards the tools to save them from the depredations of industry in the short term and sustain them over the long. Luckily, bestowing legal standing on extra-human parties isn’t a fanciful idea: The U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that in the 2010 case known as Citizens United, when it declared that corporations were legal persons—a decision that hobbled American democracy but also set a neat precedent for extending legal personhood to nonhuman entities. And corporations are clearly more abstract and disembodied than animals: Just a couple of weeks ago scientists and philosophers from many nations published the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, which argues for the likelihood of consciousness in all vertebrates and many invertebrates, including cephalopods and insects.  In New Zealand, a river and a rainforest have been awarded personhood; the people of Ecuador, in 2008, voted to modify their Constitution to recognize the right of nature to exist and flourish; in the United States, the Yurok tribe gave personhood to the Klamath River under tribal law in 2019; and in 2010 Pittsburgh became the first major city to recognize the rights of nature. Those rights have also been enacted into law or invoked by courts in Bolivia, Panama, and India. A summit held in mid-April at Brown University was aimed at elevating the agency and visibility of the more-than-human world in climate negotiations. And if species and ecosystems are recognized as entities with rights, their destruction can become a prosecutable offense. Accountability for the violence of what some call “ecocide” should be embedded in international law and civil and criminal codes. Here too, early inroads are being made, for example by the European Union, countries like Finland and Sweden, and the International Criminal Court. Establishing the responsibility of both private and public actors for the lives and natural systems they destroy—for deforestation, deadly heat domes, red tides, mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia, or cobalt mining in Congo, to name only a few culprits—is reasonable and fair. And the prerequisite to that is affirming in our legal codes that all of the life forms surrounding us have value. They’re connected to each other and to our own survival in ways we’ve just begun to fathom. And unless we act swiftly, we may never have the chance to learn more.

The terrifying truth of the climate and mass extinction crises is that we don’t understand all that we stand to lose. And without extraordinary acts of imagination and foresight, as a society, we won’t understand what’s being lost till it’s too late—at which time we’ll have to look back at what we might have done with a heartbreak and remorse that have no remedy. So we need to protect the living world with the best tool we have: the law.Evolution is slow, while the climate is changing at a breakneck pace. For organisms like elephants and whales, who can live as long as we do, or trees, who live much longer, both the path to potential adaptation to this rapidly morphing planet and the path to our understanding may stretch beyond any time frame that could help us to save them before the clock strikes midnight. Small animals, whose lives and reproductive cycles tend to be shorter, can be more readily studied across generations. Some researchers have seen signs of resilience: Mother zebra finches in Australia, one scientist found, warn the embryos inside their eggs of warming conditions outside by uttering certain calls. The chicks those embryos hatch into have lower birth weights than those who weren’t exposed to the mothers’ calls, which helps the young birds stay cool in hot weather. Lizards in Miami appeared to lower their cold-tolerance thresholds in response to a cold snap in 2020, which might defend against future environmental fluctuations; certain male dragonflies grow paler in warmer weather, losing some of the bright ornamentation that attracts females but making them less vulnerable to overheating.But examples of seemingly speedy accommodation are tiny flags fluttering on a battlefield where the overwhelming outlook for biodiversity is catastrophic. Instead of shifting gradually over thousands or even millions of years, environments are being transformed so fast that adaptive mechanisms don’t have the opportunity to kick in. In many cases, due to human-caused habitat loss and other pressures, of which the unstable climate is a massive threat multiplier, strategies that may have saved other life forms historically are no longer available to them: Pikas, for instance—cute little squeaking mammals native to western North America and Asia—may be able to move up a mountain to reach colder climes as the lower elevations get too hot, but if they reach the peak and it gets hot too, well … there’s nothing left for that wingless pika but the bare blue sky. The desert where I live is getting too hot even for arid-adapted wildlife—a lizard that had thrived in Arizona’s Mule Mountains for three million years is now newly believed extinct, and plants from the small acuña cactus to the Seussian Joshua tree are struggling to hang on.Cases abound of creatures and plants whose biological profiles appear to be setting them up for climate-driven oblivion: Crocodilians and most turtles don’t have sex chromosomes, so whether they’re born male or female depends on the temperature of the sand surrounding their eggs. A study of green sea turtles in the Great Barrier Reef in 2018 found that 99 percent of hatchlings were female, as opposed to 87 percent of adults—a ratio that could mean there already aren’t enough males for reproduction. Reef-building corals with low resistance to bleaching and death, such as staghorn and elkhorn, are at extremely high risk, and though corals occupy less than 1 percent of the ocean floor, they’re home to one-quarter of global marine diversity. Shrimplike krill, whose Antarctic habitat is projected to shrink up to 80 percent by 2100, feed most of the larger denizens of the Southern Ocean, from fish to seabirds like penguins to seals and cetaceans, and account for 96 percent of some species’ diets. The total biomass of krill is greater than that of any other multicellular animal, and these animals are a key storage bank for carbon dioxide. The humble freshwater mussels who make up the most endangered group of U.S. organisms help keep our rivers clean, but warming waters magnify the myriad threats they already face; three-quarters of flowering plants depend on pollinators, currently in decline around the globe, who happen to be critical to one out of three bites of our food. And though some plant species can migrate to escape inhospitable conditions, that migration occurs—since individuals don’t move—over generations via seed dispersal. The list of our dependencies on the other beings with whom we’ve coevolved is nearly infinite. So visionary policy is called for to protect those other beings and systems—not only for their intrinsic and cultural value but because they’re our life support, worth far more to our continued welfare intact than liquidated for short-term profit. If the goal is a livable future, for which we need to achieve a paradigm shift from exploitation to conservation, the services these networks of life supply need to be fully and properly valued. Their right to exist has to be enshrined in law.Both domestically and internationally, species and ecosystems need to be endowed with legal standing to give local and native stewards the tools to save them from the depredations of industry in the short term and sustain them over the long. Luckily, bestowing legal standing on extra-human parties isn’t a fanciful idea: The U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that in the 2010 case known as Citizens United, when it declared that corporations were legal persons—a decision that hobbled American democracy but also set a neat precedent for extending legal personhood to nonhuman entities. And corporations are clearly more abstract and disembodied than animals: Just a couple of weeks ago scientists and philosophers from many nations published the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, which argues for the likelihood of consciousness in all vertebrates and many invertebrates, including cephalopods and insects.  In New Zealand, a river and a rainforest have been awarded personhood; the people of Ecuador, in 2008, voted to modify their Constitution to recognize the right of nature to exist and flourish; in the United States, the Yurok tribe gave personhood to the Klamath River under tribal law in 2019; and in 2010 Pittsburgh became the first major city to recognize the rights of nature. Those rights have also been enacted into law or invoked by courts in Bolivia, Panama, and India. A summit held in mid-April at Brown University was aimed at elevating the agency and visibility of the more-than-human world in climate negotiations. And if species and ecosystems are recognized as entities with rights, their destruction can become a prosecutable offense. Accountability for the violence of what some call “ecocide” should be embedded in international law and civil and criminal codes. Here too, early inroads are being made, for example by the European Union, countries like Finland and Sweden, and the International Criminal Court. Establishing the responsibility of both private and public actors for the lives and natural systems they destroy—for deforestation, deadly heat domes, red tides, mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia, or cobalt mining in Congo, to name only a few culprits—is reasonable and fair. And the prerequisite to that is affirming in our legal codes that all of the life forms surrounding us have value. They’re connected to each other and to our own survival in ways we’ve just begun to fathom. And unless we act swiftly, we may never have the chance to learn more.

The terrifying truth of the climate and mass extinction crises is that we don’t understand all that we stand to lose. And without extraordinary acts of imagination and foresight, as a society, we won’t understand what’s being lost till it’s too late—at which time we’ll have to look back at what we might have done with a heartbreak and remorse that have no remedy. 

So we need to protect the living world with the best tool we have: the law.

Evolution is slow, while the climate is changing at a breakneck pace. For organisms like elephants and whales, who can live as long as we do, or trees, who live much longer, both the path to potential adaptation to this rapidly morphing planet and the path to our understanding may stretch beyond any time frame that could help us to save them before the clock strikes midnight. 

Small animals, whose lives and reproductive cycles tend to be shorter, can be more readily studied across generations. Some researchers have seen signs of resilience: Mother zebra finches in Australia, one scientist found, warn the embryos inside their eggs of warming conditions outside by uttering certain calls. The chicks those embryos hatch into have lower birth weights than those who weren’t exposed to the mothers’ calls, which helps the young birds stay cool in hot weather. Lizards in Miami appeared to lower their cold-tolerance thresholds in response to a cold snap in 2020, which might defend against future environmental fluctuations; certain male dragonflies grow paler in warmer weather, losing some of the bright ornamentation that attracts females but making them less vulnerable to overheating.

But examples of seemingly speedy accommodation are tiny flags fluttering on a battlefield where the overwhelming outlook for biodiversity is catastrophic. Instead of shifting gradually over thousands or even millions of years, environments are being transformed so fast that adaptive mechanisms don’t have the opportunity to kick in. 

In many cases, due to human-caused habitat loss and other pressures, of which the unstable climate is a massive threat multiplier, strategies that may have saved other life forms historically are no longer available to them: Pikas, for instance—cute little squeaking mammals native to western North America and Asia—may be able to move up a mountain to reach colder climes as the lower elevations get too hot, but if they reach the peak and it gets hot too, well … there’s nothing left for that wingless pika but the bare blue sky. The desert where I live is getting too hot even for arid-adapted wildlife—a lizard that had thrived in Arizona’s Mule Mountains for three million years is now newly believed extinct, and plants from the small acuña cactus to the Seussian Joshua tree are struggling to hang on.

Cases abound of creatures and plants whose biological profiles appear to be setting them up for climate-driven oblivion: Crocodilians and most turtles don’t have sex chromosomes, so whether they’re born male or female depends on the temperature of the sand surrounding their eggs. A study of green sea turtles in the Great Barrier Reef in 2018 found that 99 percent of hatchlings were female, as opposed to 87 percent of adults—a ratio that could mean there already aren’t enough males for reproduction. Reef-building corals with low resistance to bleaching and death, such as staghorn and elkhorn, are at extremely high risk, and though corals occupy less than 1 percent of the ocean floor, they’re home to one-quarter of global marine diversity. 

Shrimplike krill, whose Antarctic habitat is projected to shrink up to 80 percent by 2100, feed most of the larger denizens of the Southern Ocean, from fish to seabirds like penguins to seals and cetaceans, and account for 96 percent of some species’ diets. The total biomass of krill is greater than that of any other multicellular animal, and these animals are a key storage bank for carbon dioxide. The humble freshwater mussels who make up the most endangered group of U.S. organisms help keep our rivers clean, but warming waters magnify the myriad threats they already face; three-quarters of flowering plants depend on pollinators, currently in decline around the globe, who happen to be critical to one out of three bites of our food. And though some plant species can migrate to escape inhospitable conditions, that migration occurs—since individuals don’t move—over generations via seed dispersal. 

The list of our dependencies on the other beings with whom we’ve coevolved is nearly infinite. So visionary policy is called for to protect those other beings and systems—not only for their intrinsic and cultural value but because they’re our life support, worth far more to our continued welfare intact than liquidated for short-term profit. If the goal is a livable future, for which we need to achieve a paradigm shift from exploitation to conservation, the services these networks of life supply need to be fully and properly valued. Their right to exist has to be enshrined in law.

Both domestically and internationally, species and ecosystems need to be endowed with legal standing to give local and native stewards the tools to save them from the depredations of industry in the short term and sustain them over the long. 

Luckily, bestowing legal standing on extra-human parties isn’t a fanciful idea: The U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that in the 2010 case known as Citizens United, when it declared that corporations were legal persons—a decision that hobbled American democracy but also set a neat precedent for extending legal personhood to nonhuman entities. And corporations are clearly more abstract and disembodied than animals: Just a couple of weeks ago scientists and philosophers from many nations published the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, which argues for the likelihood of consciousness in all vertebrates and many invertebrates, including cephalopods and insects.  

In New Zealand, a river and a rainforest have been awarded personhood; the people of Ecuador, in 2008, voted to modify their Constitution to recognize the right of nature to exist and flourish; in the United States, the Yurok tribe gave personhood to the Klamath River under tribal law in 2019; and in 2010 Pittsburgh became the first major city to recognize the rights of nature. Those rights have also been enacted into law or invoked by courts in BoliviaPanama, and India. A summit held in mid-April at Brown University was aimed at elevating the agency and visibility of the more-than-human world in climate negotiations. 

And if species and ecosystems are recognized as entities with rights, their destruction can become a prosecutable offense. Accountability for the violence of what some call “ecocide” should be embedded in international law and civil and criminal codes. Here too, early inroads are being made, for example by the European Union, countries like Finland and Sweden, and the International Criminal Court. 

Establishing the responsibility of both private and public actors for the lives and natural systems they destroy—for deforestation, deadly heat domes, red tides, mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia, or cobalt mining in Congo, to name only a few culprits—is reasonable and fair. And the prerequisite to that is affirming in our legal codes that all of the life forms surrounding us have value. They’re connected to each other and to our own survival in ways we’ve just begun to fathom. And unless we act swiftly, we may never have the chance to learn more.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

How the new wildlife crossing over I-5 will help delicate Oregon ecosystem

The new crossing will be in southern Oregon in the Siskiyous, where the freeway bisects the home of an impressive list of flora and fauna

The terrain south of Ashland and stretching to the California border sits at an incredible intersection of ecological systems.Here, the ancient Siskiyou Mountains meet the volcanic Cascades, the high desert of the Great Basin, the Klamath Mountains and the oak woodlands of Northern California.Dubbed an “ecological wonderland” and home to an impressive list of flora and fauna, the area was designated as the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in 2000.Plowing through all that biodiversity is Interstate 5, which carries 17,000 vehicles per day. The four-lane interstate essentially severs the monument into two.Animals don’t have an easy time getting from one side of the road to the other. Due to its location, however, the area is a hotbed of wildlife activity and considered a “red zone” for vehicle collisions.“The traffic volume on most portions of I-5 would be considered to be a permanent barrier to wildlife movement,” Tim Greseth, executive director of the Oregon Wildlife Foundation, tells Columbia Insight. “The oddity with this particular location is it’s smack dab in the middle of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which was established primarily because of the biodiversity of the region.”Now there’s good news, for wildlife and motorists alike.Artist's rendering of Oregon's first overcrossing for wildlife, proposed for just north of the California border.ODOTThe area will soon get a lot safer thanks to a $33 million federal grant to the Oregon Department of Transportation to construct a massive wildlife crossing over I-5 just north of the Oregon-California border.“The grant award will allow ODOT to construct a wildlife crossing over Interstate 5 in southern Oregon in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument,” according to the ODOT website. “This will be the first wildlife overcrossing for Oregon and for the entire stretch of I-5 between Mexico and Canada.”Announced in December, the grant award for the Southern Oregon Wildlife Overcrossing is the result of years of work and collaboration spearheaded by the Southern Oregon Wildlife Crossing Coalition, which formed in 2021 to push for animal crossings in the monument.ODOT will provide another $3.8 million in matching funds that will come from a pot of money created by the 2021 Oregon Legislature to support wildlife crossings across the state.Construction is expected to begin in 2028, according to ODOT.Overcross vs. undercrossEach year in Oregon, officials document about 6,000 vehicle collisions with deer and elk.Wildlife crossings are effective at reducing such collisions.Oregon’s six existing wildlife undercrossings—tunnels constructed beneath roads—have resulted in an 80-90% decrease in vehicle-wildlife collisions in impacted areas, according to ODOT and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.“There’s a real advantage to doing overcrossings versus undercrossings,” says Greseth. “Overcrossings get a lot more diversity of species use. If you think about an underpass—and think about even people and how we might approach something where we’re going underneath a busy road—each of us individually would probably approach that with some trepidation. Animals aren’t going to be different.”The proposed I-5 overcross will consist of soil, vegetation and landscaping elements to make the crossing feel safer to wildlife. It will include retaining walls and sound walls along its length to dampen interstate noise and shield wildlife from light on the road.Dense plantings of vegetation will offer cover from predators for smaller animals, while open paths along the crossing will give animals using the bridge the ability to see their destination, according to ODOT spokesperson Julie Denney.ODOT’s landscape architect and a multidisciplinary subgroup are planning which plants to use on the bridge. The team is “focusing on the plants that will help make the crossing the most attractive for the species we expect to utilize the crossing,” says Denney. Those species include deer, elk, bear, cougar, birds and even insects.Potential plants for the crossing include sugar pine, desert gooseberry, deer brush, Oregon white oak, dwarf Oregon white oak, rubber rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush and spreading dogbane.The structure will span northbound and southbound lanes, and have fencing stretching two-and-a-half miles in each direction and on either side of the interstate. The fencing will help funnel wildlife onto the bridge.“Our goal is to provide an environment for the crossing to be as natural as possible, hopefully in a way that the wildlife are unaware they are crossing a major interstate,” says Denney.Kendra Chamberlain is Columbia Insight’s contributing editor. As a freelance journalist based in Eugene, she covers the environment, energy and climate change. Her work has appeared in DeSmog Blog, High Country News, InvestigateWest and Ensia.Columbia Insight, based in Hood River is a nonprofit newsroom focused on environmental issues of the Columbia River Basin and the Pacific Northwest.

Chained Monkey Among Latest Wildlife Rescues in Costa Rica

Although Costa Rica is committed to protecting wildlife, unscrupulous individuals continue to violate the rules and insist on keeping wild animals as pets. The National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) rescued a white-faced monkey that was held in captivity in Jacó. The animal was tied with a chain around its neck, which caused serious injuries, […] The post Chained Monkey Among Latest Wildlife Rescues in Costa Rica appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Although Costa Rica is committed to protecting wildlife, unscrupulous individuals continue to violate the rules and insist on keeping wild animals as pets. The National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) rescued a white-faced monkey that was held in captivity in Jacó. The animal was tied with a chain around its neck, which caused serious injuries, according to SINAC personnel. “He no longer had any hair to protect him around the neck because of the chain. He had open wounds that must have caused him a lot of pain,” officials stated. The animal was taken to Zooave, located in La Garita de Alajuela, where it is receiving veterinary medical attention. SINAC emphasized that keeping wildlife in captivity is a crime and urges people to report any cases they know of. “For those who had this animal in captivity, the corresponding complaint was filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office,” SINAC confirmed. Parrots, parakeets, turtles, snakes, and iguanas are among the wild animals protected by the Wildlife Conservation Law in Costa Rica.   On the other hand, a two-toed sloth cub was rescued in the canton of Upala during an operation involving the Public Force, local residents, and SINAC. The rescue occurred after the officers received information about the female sloth cub, which had been found abandoned by a local family. According to authorities, the animal was handed over to the officers, who, while feeding and caring for her, began searching for the mother in the vicinity. Despite their efforts to locate her, it was not possible. On Wednesday, they coordinated with the wildlife rescue center “Toucan Rescue Ranch” in Río Frío, Sarapiquí, to transfer the calf, where it is receiving the proper care. “The two-toed sloth is a species facing a population decline in Costa Rica, mainly due to the destruction of its natural habitat and illegal capture for keeping as pets,” environmental authorities highlighted. Keeping animals in captivity is a crime in Costa Rica, which carries monetary penalties and even a prison sentence. The post Chained Monkey Among Latest Wildlife Rescues in Costa Rica appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Fears of ‘rogue rewilding’ in Scottish Highlands after further lynx sightings

Environmentalists condemn unauthorised releases as ‘reckless’ and ‘highly irresponsible’For a brief moment this week, lynx have been roaming the Scottish Highlands once again. But this was not the way conservationists had hoped to end their 1,000-year absence.On Wednesday, Police Scotland received reports of two lynx in a forest in the Cairngorms national park, sparking a frantic search. That episode ended in less than a day. Both animals were quickly captured by experts from the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (RZSS) and taken to quarantine facilities at Highland wildlife park. Continue reading...

For a brief moment this week, lynx roamed the Scottish Highlands once again. But this was not the way conservationists had hoped to end their 1,000-year absence.On Wednesday, Police Scotland received reports of two lynx in a forest in the Cairngorms national park, sparking a frantic search. That episode ended in less than a day. Both animals were quickly captured by experts from the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (RZSS) and taken to quarantine facilities at Highland wildlife park.Yet their delight at a successful operation was shortlived. Early on Friday morning, the RZSS’s network of wildlife cameras caught two more lynx in the same stretch of forest, near Kingussie. The baited traps were redeployed, and its specialists were hunting again.Screen grab taken from video issued by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (RZSS) of one of the two Lynx captured in the Cairngorms on Thursday. Photograph: Royal Zoological Society of Scotland/PASpeculation has erupted over who was responsible for the illegal release, and police said enquiries were continuing to establish the full circumstances. Both lynx – who are shy, solitary animals in the wild and not dangerous to humans – appeared tame and showed little sign of being able to survive on their own, according to a witness. The witness said the lynx were found near straw bedding left beside a layby with dead chicks and porcupine quills.On social media, some pointed the finger at rogue rewilders taking the law into their own hands by making the return of lynx a fact on the ground, akin to how beavers returned to the UK through unauthorised “beaver bombing” . Studies indicate that the Highlands could support as many as 400 lynx in the wild and there is strong support for their return among environmental groups. But leading voices in the rewilding sector were quick to condemn this week’s unauthorised release as “reckless” and “highly irresponsible”.Dave Barclay, the RZSS expert leading the hunt for the lynx, was furious. These animals were semi-tame, and “highly habituated to people”, he said, yet had been released in deep winter. Temperatures locally had plunged below -5C, with deep snow cover, and they had been released at the mouth of a forest track heavily used by logging machinery.“All of that compromises the welfare of these animals,” he said. “It is abhorrent what has happened here, and against all international good practice.”Investigators now suspect the lynx could be from a family group. The two captured yesterday are understood to be juveniles, cubs aged about 1 or 2 years of age, while the two spotted on Friday are thought to be an adult and a third juvenile.Ben Goldsmith, an environmentalist who said he was not involved with the release, said: “Like many others, I have been momentarily thrilled by the notion of lynx once again stalking the Cairngorms. Lynx are an iconic native species missing from Britain and they should be back here. The habitat is perfect, these are secretive animals, and there are no good reasons not to reintroduce them.“We don’t know the story behind these missing lynx – perhaps they are abandoned pets that have become unmanageable. Whatever has happened, it seems to have been poorly thought through,” he added.The lynx were found on Danish billionaire Anders Povlsen’s Killiehuntly estate. A spokesperson for WildLand, the company that runs his Scottish estates, said they believed that native predators should only be reintroduced lawfully and in close collaboration with local people.In the UK, citizens must apply to their local council to keep wild animals legally. According to figures collected by Born Free in 2023, 31 lynx were kept by private collectors, although all were housed in England. Experts said that more lynx were likely to be held in unauthorised private collections that were difficult to monitor.“There could be far more lynx in private hands that are actually recorded. If they have cubs, they may not register them. People would be gobsmacked of what people have in their back garden. I know of people who have snow leopards and cougars in their back garden. It’s shocking. It should be banned,” said Dr Paul O’Donoghue, director of the Lynx UK Trust, who also said he was not involved with therelease.Were it not for the English Channel, lynx would probably already have returned to the UK. Now a protected species in Europe, the Eurasian lynx has recovered from a few hundred in the 1950s to as many as 10,000. Research shows there is mixed support for their return in the UK, with strong opposition from the agricultural community, who fear they will attack livestock.Edward Mountain, MSP for the Highlands and Islands and a landowner, said there was a “genuine fear” amongst locals about “guerrilla rewilding”. “We saw it with beavers on the Tay, now there’s talk of reintroducing sea eagles and goshawks. It can change an entire local ecosystem and that’s dangerous if it’s not done properly,” he said.

Why sabre-toothed animals evolved again and again

Sabre teeth can be ideal for puncturing the flesh of prey, which may explain why they evolved in different groups of mammals at least five times

The skull of a saber-toothed tiger (Smilodon)Steve Morton Predators have evolved sabre teeth many times during the history of life – and we now have a better idea why these teeth develop as they do. Sabre teeth have very specific characteristics: they are exceptionally long, sharp canines that tend to be slightly flattened and curved, rather than rounded. Such teeth have independently evolved in different groups of mammals at least five times, and fossils of sabre-tooth predators have been found in North and South America, Europe and Asia. The teeth are first known to have appeared some 270 million years ago, in mammal-like reptiles called gorgonopsids. Another example is Thylacosmilus, which died out about 2.5 million years ago and was most closely related to marsupials. Sabre teeth were last seen in Smilodon, often called sabre-toothed tigers, which existed until about 10,000 years ago. To investigate why these teeth kept re-evolving, Tahlia Pollock at the University of Bristol, UK, and her colleagues looked at the canines of 95 carnivorous mammal species, including 25 sabre-toothed ones. First, the researchers measured the shapes of the teeth to categorise and model them. Then they 3D-printed smaller versions of each tooth in metal and tested their performance in puncture tests, in which the teeth were mechanically pushed into gelatine blocks designed to mimic the density of animal tissue. This showed that the sabre teeth were able to puncture the block with up to 50 per cent less force than the other teeth could, says Pollock. The researchers then assessed the tooth shape and puncture performance data using a measure called the Pareto rank ratio, which judged how optimal the teeth were for strength or puncturing. “A carnivore’s teeth have to be sharp and slender enough to allow the animal to pierce the flesh of their prey, but they also need to be blunt and robust enough to not break while an animal’s biting,” says Pollock. Animals like Smilodon had extremely long sabre teeth. “These teeth were probably popping up again and again because they represent an optimal design for puncture,” says Pollock. “They’re really good at puncturing, but that also means that they’re a little bit fragile.” For instance, the La Brea Tar Pits in California have lots of fossils of Smilodon, some with broken teeth. Other sabre-toothed animals also had teeth that were the ideal shape for a slightly different job. The cat Dinofelis had squatter sabre teeth that balanced puncturing and strength more equally, says Pollock. The teeth of other sabre-toothed species sat between these optimal shapes, which might be why some of them didn’t last too long. “These kinds of things trade off,” says Pollock. “The aspects of shape that make a tooth good at one thing make it bad at the other.” One of the main hypotheses for why sabre-tooth species went extinct is that ecosystems were changing and the huge prey they are thought to have targeted, such as mammoths, were disappearing. The team’s puncture findings back this up. The giant teeth wouldn’t have been as effective for catching prey that were more like the size of a rabbit, and the risk of tooth breakage here may have increased, so the sabre-toothed animals would have been outcompeted by predators that are more effective at hunting such prey, like cats with smaller teeth, says Pollock. “As soon as the ecological or environmental conditions change, the highly specialised sabre-tooth predators were unable to adapt quickly enough and became extinct,” says Stephan Lautenschlager at the University of Birmingham, UK. “I think that’s part of the reason why this sabre-tooth morphology hasn’t evolved again in the present – we don’t have the megafauna,” says Julie Meachen at Des Moines University in Iowa. “The prey is not there.”

Oregon approves key permit for controversial biofuel refinery on Columbia River

Oregon environmental regulators gave a key stamp of approval to a proposed $2.5 billion biofuel refinery along the Columbia River despite continued opposition from environmental groups and tribes over potential impacts to the river and salmon.

Oregon environmental regulators gave a key stamp of approval to a proposed $2.5 billion biofuel refinery along the Columbia River despite continued opposition from environmental groups and tribes over potential impacts to the river and salmon.The NEXT Energy refinery, also known as NXTClean Fuels, plans to manufacture renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel at the deepwater port of Port Westward, an industrial park on the outskirts of Clatskanie in Columbia County. Biofuels are considered renewable because they are produced from plants and organic waste products such as cow manure or agricultural residue.The Department of Environmental Quality on Tuesday approved a water quality certification for NEXT, allowing the Houston-based company to move forward with the project. The certification – marking the final comprehensive state review – is a requirement for the refinery to secure a federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.The state agency previously twice denied NEXT’s application for the certification, in 2021 and 2022, “due to insufficient information to evaluate the permit application.” More recently, the company secured state approvals for a removal fill permit and air permit in 2022 and county land-use permits in 2024.Proponents hail biofuels for their ability to reduce carbon emissions as a stop-gap measure before the transportation sector can move to full-on electrification as climate groups advocate. Countries across the world, including the U.S., individual states like Oregon and cities such as Portland have bet on biofuels to reduce carbon emissions from cars and trucks via fuel blending mandates that require a certain percentage of biofuels to be mixed with traditional fossil fuels.Environmental groups have raised concerns in recent years about the impacts of biofuel production, storage and transportation, including deforestation, the displacement of food production and the significant greenhouse gas emissions from various biofuel sources.The Port Westward refinery plans to produce up to 50,000 barrels per day – or more than 750 million gallons a year – of renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel. The fuels will be shipped offsite via pipelines, trucks and railcars to markets worldwide.Environmental groups this week said state regulators “caved in” to pressure from the building trades, putting the river and people’s well-being at risk from possible spills.DEQ spokesperson Michael Loch declined to directly comment on that statement.“DEQ carefully reviewed NEXT’s application for a 401 water quality certification and determined that the proposed project meets the state’s water quality standards,” Loch said.NEXT has said it plans to make the biofuels at Port Westward from used cooking oil, fish grease, animal tallows and seed oils. It already has an agreement with a Vietnamese company to import fish grease, company spokesperson Michael Hinrichs said. And it’s in discussions with other companies for used cooking oil and animal tallows from Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Brazil and Canada, he said.Conservation groups in Oregon dispute those promises, pointing to the company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.“NEXT’s documentation shows that the majority of its feedstocks will be from corn and soybean oil, which are purpose-grown feedstocks with a higher carbon footprint, and will be shipped to the facility on long trains,” said Audrey Leonard, a staff attorney with Columbia Riverkeeper, a Portland-based environmental group focused on protecting the river that has fought the project for years.Columbia Riverkeeper and other opponents of the project also argue the refinery could damage water quality in the Columbia and its tributaries, including several area sloughs, and degrade local wetlands in the event of spills from the refinery and its railyard caused by accidents or a major earthquake.The proposed refinery would be built on unstable soil behind dikes that are next to high-value farmland and salmon habitat, Leonard said. Renewable fuels are just as flammable as fossil fuels, she said.In addition, the proposed refinery would use large volumes of fracked gas, a fossil fuel, in the production of renewable fuels, resulting in significant greenhouse gas emissions, Leonard said. NEXT’s air permit allows over 1 million tons a year of greenhouse gas emissions from the fracked gas operations to produce the fuel at the refinery. For comparison, the average petroleum refinery emits 1.2 million tons per year and Intel’s two campuses are authorized to emit a combined 1.7 million tons of greenhouse gases per year.The region’s tribes also have sent letters opposing the refinery, saying it will degrade water quality and negatively affect juvenile salmon and other aquatic species.“This project is a massive step backwards from the years of effort to improve aquatic habitat,” wrote Aja K. DeCoteau, executive director with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission which manages fisheries for local tribes.Other groups have expressed support for the project and see it as a climate change solution that will reduce emissions and pollution.“On our way to a zero-emission future, we must do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution in the short term through strategies like rapidly expanding the use of renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel,” wrote Tim Miller, the director of Oregon Business for Climate, a nonprofit group focused on mobilizing industry support to advance climate policy in Oregon.Now that the refinery has the water certification in hand, the Army Corps of Engineers will issue a draft environmental impact statement for public review later this year and will evaluate whether to issue a federal water quality permit for the project.NEXT still must secure two state stormwater permits, though those are routine and typically filed after approval of the federal permit.The company is also developing a second biofuel refinery in Lakeview, 100 miles east of Klamath Falls, after acquiring an existing never-opened facility in 2023 from Red Rock Biofuels when that company went into foreclosure. The Lakeview plant will use wood waste from local forest thinning, logging and wildfire management activities to make renewable natural gas, known as RNG. The company has yet to announce when the plant will launch.— Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

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.