Poachers hunting rare ‘ghost' flowers, near extinction
(WJW) — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fears if action isn't taken, the rare ghost orchid could soon be extinct.
The FWS is now proposing to list the swamp-dwelling plant as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.
Woman dies from brain-eating amoeba in tap water
According to experts, the ghost orchid is a flowering plant that is only in Florida and western Cuba. It is described as a leafless plant that attaches itself by its roots high up on trees, making its white blossoms appear to hover in the air and look ghost-like.
'It is one of the most famous flowers in Florida, but its population has declined to fewer than 1,000 plants in the United States. Less than half of those are mature enough to reproduce,' warned the FWS in a press release.
Ground beef sold nationwide possibly contaminated with E. Coli
Experts report the plant is at risk of extinction due to multiple threats, including habitat loss and habitat degradation. However, poaching is its biggest threat. The Service said it is not proposing critical habitat for the plant out of fear that it would only increase the threat of poaching.
CLICK HERE to learn more.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Local families head to DC to fight Medicaid cuts
CLEVELAND (WJW) — As the battle over the proposed budget bill continues in the nation's capital, local families are preparing to go to Washington to meet directly with lawmakers to advocate for the preservation of Medicaid. The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed the sweeping budget bill that reportedly cuts $600 billion from Medicaid and would eventually reduce enrollment by millions. Missing 7-year-old paddleboarder found, and he only had one question New Franklin mother Wendy Wilson is planning to go to Washington with her daughter Mia, 14, representing University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital. Since birth, Mia has had a critical heart defect called Ebstein's anomaly. Wendy said she wasn't able to be repaired, meaning her heart is not fixed. More than once she was at risk of dying. Although she does enjoy activities including boating, going to concerts and just having fun, Mia is on a daily routine that includes breathing treatments twice a day, feeding tubes and about 40 doses of medication every day. Her mother left her work when Mia was young so she could care for her. Her father has a good job with insurance, but Mia's condition keeps them from getting any other insurance. 'I haven't checked recently, but the last time I checked, it was around $5,000 a month for just her medicine,' said Wendy. That does not include all of the additional costs. They qualified for assistance through Medicaid through a state program that picks up a large portion of the cost. Without it, Wendy said they could be at risk of losing their home. Akron Children's Hospital will be represented in Akron by Stephanie Hill of Twinsburg and her 2-year-old daughter Amaiyah. At 17 months old, Amaiyah accidentally swallowed some baby oil while she was taking a bath. Although it did not immediately show signs of significantly impacting the toddler, within a short time, she started to experience breathing problems and was eventually admitted to Akron Children's Hospital where she spent 152 days. During that time, her condition became so serious that there was consideration of Amaiyah needing a double lung transplant. 'As we were waiting to hear back from her insurance, we got word that they denied it, but that very same day was the day she started getting better and better,' said Stephanie. In February, Amaiyah was released from the hospital. On Friday — having celebrated her second birthday just this week — she appeared to have suffered no ill effects from that episode. Without Medicaid, she may not have had access to the health care that helped her recover. Remains found in search for missing teen last seen at airport Chris Gessner, CEO of Akron Children's Hospital, said about 54% of the patients at his hospital are helped by Medicaid, which he believes is about the norm across the state. 'I think its been proven, evidence-based, that kids who have access to high quality health care services do much better long-term and and the Medicaid program is wonderful from a benefit perspective in terms of what it covers,' Gessner said. 'It would be a real problem for us. I mean, with over half of our business with Medicaid, we pay a lot of attention when they start talking about Medicaid cuts,' Gessner told FOX 8 News. 'From my perspective, we understand the need to balance the budget and be responsible with resources, but we really don't want to see that done by cutting into the future of our country — our kids' health,' he added. As the debate over Medicaid cuts continues in Washington, he hopes federal lawmakers understand how the program has a direct impact on the welfare of young lives. When discussing the budget bill, President Donald Trump has defended the need to make cuts to Medicaid. 'The only thing we are cutting is waste, fraud and abuse from Medicaid,' Trump said, discussing his 'big beautiful bill' on May 30. Among the lawmakers who the Hill family knows they will be speaking with directly is Ohio's Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed to fill the term of now Vice President J.D. Vance. FOX 8 News reached out to Husted's office on Wednesday and was sent a written statement which reads: 'We need to save Medicaid. And saving Medicaid means you have to make it financially sustainable. We want to make sure that children, people with disabilities and the people who are really in need have this program available to them. To do that, able-bodied, healthy Americans without dependents have to give back to their communities in return for the benefits they're getting. America has a $36 trillion national debt, so we have to be smart about finding savings in order to protect these programs.' Participating in a Democratic news conference about Medicaid on May 20, U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown of Cleveland said she will do everything within her power to preserve the program. 'In my state of Ohio, the state government has already said that if these cuts are enacted under state law, they would end the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion in our state, so what does that mean? It means 770,000 people will lose their health care. That's an entire congressional district in just one state. This is suffering on a massive scale and it's going to hurt people of all backgrounds,' said Brown. Sobriety checkpoints Friday: Here's where in Northeast Ohio Next week's trip to Washington, D.C., is sponsored by the Children's Hospital Association, an organization that represents 150 hospitals across the country. It is an annual trip the organization schedules each year, giving each member hospital the opportunity to nominate one family as their representative. Among the other things for which they are advocating is access to pediatric hospitals, which Gessner said is particularly concerning in many rural areas of the country. They will also be advocating for what they describe as the 'growing youth mental health crisis.' But for Medicaid, the Northeast Ohio families that are going hope they can show firsthand how important the program has been for them. 'We have good insurance and it's still just not enough. With the health care costs and the way the policies run, [Mia] can't get insurance anywhere else,' said Wilson. 'Mia's never gone without something that she needed, but I also realize that's not the case for everybody. 'Thank God we are in a position where we are surrounded by a community that literally has helped us pay for these things when we didn't have coverage — but not everybody is in that position.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
