Oregon House passes bill encouraging beavers to fix impaired waterways
On Monday, the Oregon House voted to close all recreational and commercial beaver trappings near the state's impaired waterways in an effort to encourage their spread. These animals have a natural instinct to dam up creeks and streams — effectively encouraging water to stay where it's meant to be.
Parents sought after toddler suffered severe brain injury from fentanyl overdose
The goal of is to allow these animals to 'perform their ecological functions' on the more than 100,000 miles of waterways in Oregon that are considered impaired.
'This legislation gives us an opportunity to try a low-tech, low-risk, and free strategy to address impaired waterways by encouraging beavers to return to Oregon landscapes. The science says this can work, and we're willing to give it a try,' said Rep. Pam Marsh of Southern Jackson County.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality determines a waterway's designation by using the following criteria: temperature, sedimentation, level of dissolved oxygen, and health of invertebrates.
Port of Portland votes to revoke DEI policies to comply with Trump executive order
Beaver dams can help by slowing water to help pollutants settle out and adjusting the landscape to aid groundwater, prevent wildfires, and create habitats for other members of the local ecosystem.
'By protecting beavers where they do the most good, we're investing in natural solutions that support clean water, healthy forests, and more resilient communities,' said Rep. Emerson Levy of Central Oregon. 'This bill is a practical step forward that honors the stewardship of our shared public lands.'
However, a recent report by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife found that most recreational trapping in Oregon takes place on private lands. That means only 4% of harvests will be stopped by HB 3932.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign, citing a call by the head of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency urging the Department of Justice to probe Cook over alleged mortgage fraud. Representatives for Cook could not be immediately reached for comment on the allegations posted by FHFA Director Bill Pulte on X earlier on Wednesday. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare
As America faces increasing health threats from wildfire smoke, summer heat waves and rising cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, the last thing we need is to reverse laws that protect U.S. air quality. Yet, that's precisely what the Trump administration intends to do by proposing a repeal of a central scientific finding that serves as the basis for the Clean Air Act — legislation that has saved millions of American lives and been responsible for monumental advancements both to our environment and public health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month the agency plans to end a long-held 'endangerment finding' that asserts carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases present a risk to human health. If that happens, it will neutralize the federal government's ability to combat climate change and enforce laws intended to protect America's wellbeing. One of those laws is the Clean Air Act. Enacted in 1970, it has been one of the most successful public health policies in U.S. history. It's credited with reducing six of the most common air pollutants in the U.S. by nearly 80 percent while saving over 230,000 early deaths and avoiding over 120,000 emergency room visits every year. It has reduced chronic bronchitis, infant mortality and prevented millions of cases of asthma exacerbation as well. These statistics aren't conjecture: They're sourced directly from the EPA's own website, the same agency now leading the charge to turn the clock back on these remarkable achievements. Zeldin's announcement claims that the reversal of the endangerment finding will 'undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations.' But the positive U.S. economic impact from the Clean Air Act alone far exceeds this figure. By reducing hospital visits, sick days and treatment of costly respiratory-related disease, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act has created $2 trillion in U.S. economic benefit as of 2020 — twice the amount Zeldin asserts the endangerment finding's repeal would create. Further, clean energy has proven itself to be a source of strong job creation. The Department of Energy found that jobs in renewable energy grew more than twice as fast as the vibrant 2023 U.S labor market. And the science couldn't be clearer: Clean air is critical to public health. 'Decades of research have shown that air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter increase the amount and seriousness of lung and heart disease and other health problems,' the EPA states. Worse, those pollutants are disproportionately burdened by communities of color. A 2024 Milken Institute of Public Health study found that marginalized communities have eight times the number of pediatric asthma cases and a 30 percent higher chance of dying early from pollution exposure. That same study attributed this inequality to the close proximity many minority communities share with industrial manufacturing facilities. Imagine what those numbers would be if the endangerment finding is reversed and the U.S. can no longer enforce Clean Air Act provisions. Zeldin referred to the EPA action as 'driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,' and that it would be 'the largest deregulatory action in the history of America.' But doing so will only cause greater sickness in America and inundate an already stressed U.S. health care system. Increased exposure to air pollution will result in higher numbers of emergency room visits, increased rates of chronic illness and heightened health care costs. The medical and environmental advocacy community agree greater exposure to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas is a bad idea. Groups such as the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, World Wildlife Fund, along with nursing organizations and medical societies all stand in strong opposition to the EPA's proposed action. Zeldin's proposal follows another questionable deregulatory move by the EPA in recent weeks to reintroduce dicamba, a weed killer used on soybeans and cotton. Use of the pesticide was halted by a federal court last year. A 2020 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to dicamba was reportedly 'linked to some cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting the blood and bone marrow.' But the EPA has argued it 'has not identified any human health or dietary risks of concern.' The U.S. government's job is to protect America's citizens. The Clean Air Act has saved millions of lives, safeguarded our skies and proven that environmental laws and economic progress can peacefully coexist. Repealing the endangerment finding will set America on a dangerous path and put the health and welfare of every American at risk.
