Latest news with #CaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct
San Francisco Chronicle
24-06-2025
- Automotive
- San Francisco Chronicle
Adding freeway lanes doesn't fix traffic. Why does California keep wasting billions on it?
People believe all sorts of things without any evidence. Take the common misconception that earthquakes are more likely in warm weather or that talking about a no-hitter in progress will jinx its completion. Another unfounded belief is that adding lanes to highways reduces traffic congestion. But unlike simple superstitions, adding freeway lanes is incredibly expensive, in terms of public tax dollars and the time spent on construction, and ultimately doesn't fix the problem. Worse, highway officials charged with improving mobility keep perpetuating the myth that adding lanes alleviates congestion. Countless studies — including those used by Caltrans for highway planning — have documented 'induced demand' for driving, meaning that adding new highway lanes in the hope of reducing traffic only encourages more drivers to use the road, which results in higher levels of congestion. The poster child project for this effect was the $1.6 billion Interstate 405 expansion in Los Angeles that began in 2011. After drivers suffered through years of mind-numbing construction closures, the new lanes were opened with great fanfare, and traffic congestion was worse than ever on Day 1. Right now, the California Transportation Commission is set to vote on half a dozen of these lane widening boondoggles that will widen highways in Los Angeles and Riverside counties, the Central Valley and the Bay Area at a cost of $1.25 billion in our limited tax dollars. It's well past time to put a stop to this. Not only will these highway widening projects do nothing to relieve traffic congestion, they will encourage more people to hit the roadways and push California further away from its goals for greenhouse gas reduction at a time when investment in our public transit systems would be far more effective. One thing that is not a myth, according to 99.9% of scientific experts, is that human beings are causing climate change through activities like driving gasoline-powered cars. Yet, the California Transportation Commission will vote to expand car infrastructure just weeks after the Trump administration blew up California's clean car rules, a move that will slow the transition to electric vehicles. Given this horrible development, one would think the state would look for alternative ways to reduce climate emissions from transportation. Widening freeways will only result in more smog, more congestion and more housing displacement. While all six of the projects that the commission is set to approve this year are classic money-wasters, one stands out: the 'interim' lane expansion of notoriously jammed Highway 37 that connects Solano and Marin counties. Caltrans and local policymakers have brushed aside concerns about endangered wildlife by advancing a bill this year that would exempt the project from California Endangered Species Act rules and dedicated nearly $500 million to this project — including $73 million that will be awarded by commission this week, all with the knowledge that sea-level rise projections anticipate that the entire corridor could be underwater as soon as 2040. The only traffic the project will ever relieve will be duck traffic. Let's talk about another myth, the one that says that thanks to the rise in the number of electric vehicles on the road, we don't really need to worry as much about climate change. Unfortunately, our electric future is in jeopardy with the Trump administration planning to eliminate incentives for EV purchases and striking down California's mandate to phase out gasoline-powered cars by 2035. But even if our renewable energy dream were to come true, that alone wouldn't come close to achieving our climate goals, and it certainly wouldn't alleviate traffic congestion. There are other projects the state could embark on if it really wants to get cars off the road and improve our quality of life. Our public transit systems are struggling to maintain service. Our existing streets and highways are crumbling due to poor maintenance. We also need major investment in the charging infrastructure for zero-emission trucks and trains that could reduce diesel pollution in communities near freeways. A broader solution would call for a holistic approach to housing, jobs and transportation that would eliminate the need for people to live so far from where they work. While some supporters of adding more lanes to freeways will counter that many people love to drive, many others simply are forced to do so due to a lack of better options. Although the California Transportation Commission has made some progress on driving alternatives in recent years, the idea persists that its primary mandate is road building and widening. That's simply not true. The mandate is to invest in a multimodal transportation system that includes rail, transit and active transportation to help us move through the world to work, school and elsewhere efficiently and improve our quality of life. Some will choose to do that in a car, but some want faster, cleaner options — and it's the commission's mandate to provide that.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Lifestyle
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: California's wolves present a complicated problem for ranchers and plenty of opinions
To the editor: The call by California ranchers to kill endangered wolves in response to livestock losses is concerning and counterproductive ('Killing wolves remains a crime in California. But a rebellion is brewing,' May 30). Lethal measures undermine years of conservation progress made for a species still in recovery. Wolves play a crucial role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. The resurgence of wolves in California signifies a positive step toward ecological balance after their near eradication. Protections under the California Endangered Species Act are in place to ensure the species' continued recovery and to promote coexistence strategies. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program, which not only compensates for direct losses but also supports nonlethal deterrent measures, should be expanded and at least partly funded by those that profit off our public lands, such as the Cattlemen's Assn. and corporations such as Tyson, JBS and Cargill. Other Western states allow killing wolves indiscriminately. California must set the example where nature is the priority, not industries that disproportionately contribute to climate change and degrade ecosystems. Judie Mancuso, Laguna BeachThis writer is founder and president of animal advocacy nonprofit Social Compassion in Legislation. .. To the editor: I am an environmentally concerned citizen, but it just seems the aggressive wolves in Northern California need to have their fear of human beings restored. Common sense tells me that the ranchers should be allowed to clip a few here and there. Mike Sovich, Glendale .. To the editor: This article made me wonder why cattlemen don't put several donkeys into their herd of cattle. Donkeys can bond with the cattle, and they are smart and capable of helping keep wolves from attacking them. It would be a natural way to reduce or eliminate the threat. Deborah Sheflin, Norco .. To the editor: The most prolific cattle killers are not the wolves, as the article states, but the barbaric industry that slaughters tens of millions of these gentle beings annually just so we can buy cheap burgers. When a wolf pack kills what is now easy prey, it's so an endangered species can survive. If we hadn't decimated the habitat that supported a healthy wildlife population, then this conflict wouldn't exist. Tim Viselli, La Cañada Flintridge .. To the editor: Wolves, a native species, roamed these lands for hundreds of thousands of years and are returning after a brief human-caused interruption. Ranchers raise cattle, a nonnative species, on public lands under inexpensive grazing permits subsidized by taxpayers. Even with wolves, the ranchers have a great deal. Thomas Bliss, Los Angeles This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
03-06-2025
- Lifestyle
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: California's wolves present a complicated problem for ranchers and plenty of opinions
To the editor: The call by California ranchers to kill endangered wolves in response to livestock losses is concerning and counterproductive ('Killing wolves remains a crime in California. But a rebellion is brewing,' May 30). Lethal measures undermine years of conservation progress made for a species still in recovery. Wolves play a crucial role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. The resurgence of wolves in California signifies a positive step toward ecological balance after their near eradication. Protections under the California Endangered Species Act are in place to ensure the species' continued recovery and to promote coexistence strategies. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program, which not only compensates for direct losses but also supports nonlethal deterrent measures, should be expanded and at least partly funded by those that profit off our public lands, such as the Cattlemen's Assn. and corporations such as Tyson, JBS and Cargill. Other Western states allow killing wolves indiscriminately. California must set the example where nature is the priority, not industries that disproportionately contribute to climate change and degrade ecosystems. Judie Mancuso, Laguna BeachThis writer is founder and president of animal advocacy nonprofit Social Compassion in Legislation. .. To the editor: I am an environmentally concerned citizen, but it just seems the aggressive wolves in Northern California need to have their fear of human beings restored. Common sense tells me that the ranchers should be allowed to clip a few here and there. Mike Sovich, Glendale .. To the editor: This article made me wonder why cattlemen don't put several donkeys into their herd of cattle. Donkeys can bond with the cattle, and they are smart and capable of helping keep wolves from attacking them. It would be a natural way to reduce or eliminate the threat. Deborah Sheflin, Norco .. To the editor: The most prolific cattle killers are not the wolves, as the article states, but the barbaric industry that slaughters tens of millions of these gentle beings annually just so we can buy cheap burgers. When a wolf pack kills what is now easy prey, it's so an endangered species can survive. If we hadn't decimated the habitat that supported a healthy wildlife population, then this conflict wouldn't exist. Tim Viselli, La Cañada Flintridge .. To the editor: Wolves, a native species, roamed these lands for hundreds of thousands of years and are returning after a brief human-caused interruption. Ranchers raise cattle, a nonnative species, on public lands under inexpensive grazing permits subsidized by taxpayers. Even with wolves, the ranchers have a great deal. Thomas Bliss, Los Angeles
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
In rural California, gray wolves are a growing threat demanding attention
The return of gray wolves to rural California may be viewed by some as an ecological milestone, but for families in these regions, it has ushered in a troubling new reality: the erosion of a basic sense of safety. Parents who once let their children roam freely on family ranches are now keeping them close, concerned about the growing presence of wolves. Everyday routines, like walking to the school bus stop or playing outside, are being reevaluated as safety concerns take priority. Opinion These concerns are grounded in fact: California is now home to seven confirmed gray wolf packs spread across Plumas, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Siskiyou and Tulare counties, with additional groups in Modoc and Sierra counties and individual wolves dispersing from these packs or nearby states. As the population grows, reports of livestock attacks have increased, with some wolves killing cattle without consuming them — signs of territorial behavior rather than hunger. According to the most recent data available, in less than six months — from last October to March 16 — 32 confirmed livestock kills have been reported. While the economic toll is significant, the emotional strain on ranching families is deeper, driven by a growing sense of helplessness as wolves have been recorded approaching homes and attacking livestock in daylight. Though no human attacks have occurred, residents worry it's only a matter of time. California law offers little protection to our communities. Under the California Endangered Species Act, wolves cannot be lethally removed unless there is an immediate threat to human life, leaving local officials unable to respond to escalating risk. 'We can't protect our community or their livestock,' said Modoc County Sheriff Tex Dowdy. 'Our hands are tied by state law.' Rural sheriffs currently lack the authority to act, even when wolves exhibit bold or habituated behavior. Unlike mountain lions, which may be removed if deemed an imminent threat, no such authority exists for managing wolves in California, despite their growing impact on rural life. With Modoc, Plumas and Sierra counties declaring local emergencies due to gray wolves, the need for a responsive framework is urgent. Local authorities must be empowered to act with clear legal tools to address dangerous or habituated behavior before a preventable tragedy occurs. Simultaneously, the state should fund non-lethal mitigation strategies like specialized fencing, range riders and advanced livestock protection systems to ease the financial burden on ranchers while reducing conflict. Education and training programs will help communities co-habitate with wolves, protecting families and property without resorting to lethal force. Other Western states have taken more pragmatic paths. In Idaho and Montana, gray wolf populations have continued to grow alongside comprehensive strategies that blend conservation and community protection. These states have embraced tools that help ranchers prevent conflict without defaulting to lethal force, while also allowing local authorities to act swiftly when wolves display aggressive or habituated behavior. California must follow suit, adopting a more grounded, responsive approach that reflects the lived realities of rural residents who are being asked to coexist without adequate support or protection. The return of the gray wolf should not redefine rural life through fear or loss. California must adopt a balanced, practical approach to wolf management that protects ecosystems and rural communities. This includes empowering local authorities to address dangerous behavior, investing in non-lethal deterrents like fencing and range riders, supporting education and training for safe coexistence, and implementing a statewide conflict mitigation plan for consistent, science-based responses. With these tools, California can restore the gray wolf while safeguarding the lives and livelihoods of those who call rural California home. Modoc County Supervisor Geri Byrne represents District 5 and chairs the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC). Sierra County Supervisor Lee Adams represents District 1 and is an RCRC delegate.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
California's growing wolf population triggers new management phase
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — The rising number of wolves in California has prompted the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to shift to 'Phase 2' of its wolf-management plan, the agency announced Wednesday. The new phase allows the CDFW to consider issuing permits for 'less-than-lethal harassment,' like firing guns or nonlethal munitions to scare off wolf packs hunting livestock. Any permit system would have to follow laws set in the California Endangered Species Act and Federal Endangered Species Act. 'Really Stupid Park': SF commuters use Great Highway park-naming contest to vent The new phase also prompts the CDFW to create an online tool for tracking GPS-collared wolves in the state. The CDFW will also publish its first annual report outlining the conservation and management of California wolves from 2015 to 2024. These changes are expected to occur in the coming weeks and months. 'This tool will greatly facilitate CDFW's efforts, as guided by the Conservation Plan, to provide timely information regarding wolf activity in the vicinity of livestock production,' the CDFW said. '… In the first part of 2025, CDFW has been able to collar and release 12 gray wolves in Northern California. There are now more satellite-collared wolves in California than ever before, which is expected to improve understanding and management of the species in the state.' Wolves naturally reentered California from Oregon in 2011. Wolf populations were wiped out in the region in the early 1900s and were reintroduced in Idaho in 1995 and 1996. By 2008, descendants of wolves reintroduced in Idaho began to recolonize Northeast Oregon, and ultimately Northern California. There are currently seven confirmed wolf packs in California: The Beyem Seyo pack, Diamond pack, Harvey pack, Ice Cave pack, Lassen pack, Whaleback pack and Yowlumni pack. These packs mostly inhabit Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta and Tehama counties. However, the Yowlumni pack is found in the southern Sierra Nevada. The success of these packs prompted CDFW officials to enact Phase 2 of the state's wolf conservation plan. 'Five of the seven packs met CDFW's definition of a 'breeding pair' in 2024, meaning two adults and two or more pups surviving until the end of the year,' the CDFW said. 'Because CDFW has documented at least four breeding pairs for two consecutive years, California is now in 'Phase 2' of wolf management, as specified by the state's 2016 Conservation Plan for Gray Wolves in California.' Chevron to cut 600 jobs at former HQ in San Ramon The CDFW said that it is actively monitoring and tracking gray wolves in the state, investigating wolf deaths and wolf-related livestock attacks, and working to reduce conflicts between humans and gray wolves. In the last five years, CDFW officers have conducted eight investigations into gray wolf deaths. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
