Latest news with #WildernessSociety
Miami Herald
02-06-2025
- Science
- Miami Herald
Famed furry creature explores icy river after snow blankets Tasmania. Watch
Winter has hit the southern hemisphere, and with it, the highlands of Tasmania have turned into a wintery wonderland. Tasmania, the island state of Australia, sits about 150 miles south of the mainland and was hit with a 'cold snap' that 'brought some decent snowfall' to its higher regions at the end of May, photographer Michael Eastwell said in May 20 and May 22 Instagram posts. One critter was enjoying the fresh-fallen snow as Eastwell passed by on a walk, he said. Eastwell noticed the creature bopping along the snowy banks of a river, and snuffling through the icy water, he said. 'Ever seen a platypus in the snow?' Eastwell asked the post. The video shows the platypus starting in a shallow creek, moving its head from side to side in the water. The critter then comes up on shore and uses its webbed feet to scoot along the surface of the snow. The photographer also posted photos on Instagram, which were then shared by The Wilderness Society on Facebook. 'Anyone else feeling the cold? You might be, but this little one probably isn't!' the organization said in a May 30 post. 'Platypus habitat is all along the south-east of Australia.' The Wilderness Society said the dense fur covering the little critters helps to make the animal 'waterproof,' allowing them to 'swim in very cold water for hours.' 'It's even said to provide better insulation than fur of polar bears and beavers,' the organization said. Platypus are part of a mammal order known as monotremes, which includes echidnas, and means they lay eggs, according to the Australian Museum. Their paddle-like tail acts as a fat reserve, and they have strong claws that are used for burrowing on land, the museum says. Platypuses are primarily nocturnal or active around twilight and at night, staying in their riverbank burrows during the day. They forage for a variety of aquatic invertebrates for about 10 to 12 hours a day, the museum says. Aside from their bills acting as a disguise, they also serve as the animal's primary sensory organ, the museum says. The bill has sensors that are sensitive to pressure as well as electroreceptors, but the exact way the bill detects a platypus's prey is still unknown. Platypuses are found throughout eastern and southeastern Australia, and on the island of Tasmania.
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Executive Order Aims to Make Mining the Primary Use of Public Lands at ‘As Many Sites As Possible'
The Trump Administration issued yet another executive order on Thursday. This one directs the federal government to mine federal public lands 'to the maximum possible extent,' and to prioritize mining over all other uses on federal lands that contain critical mineral deposits. This should be alarming to conservationists and wilderness advocates. Because in addition to putting critical areas like the Boundary Waters and Bristol Bay back in the crosshairs, the administration's extraction-first approach could dramatically shift what our public lands look like and how we use them. 'There are really three main thrusts to this executive order,' Dan Hartinger, senior director of agency policy for the Wilderness Society, tells Outdoor Life. 'Job one is to open new places to mining. Job two is to subsidize mining in those places. And job three is to ram through individual projects regardless of public input or what the science says.' The executive order, Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, invokes wartime powers granted by the Defense Production Act. It allows Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to expand the country's list of critical minerals. It also directs Burgum to make a priority list of all federal lands with mineral deposits, and to take whatever actions necessary to expedite and issue mining permits there. This includes rolling back environmental regulations and finding ways to fund and subsidize private mining companies with taxpayer dollars. One major issue with this executive order is how broad it is, Hartinger says. The order could include lands already protected from mining, such as public land near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and other lands with high recreational or wildlife habitat value, which have historically been managed for multiple uses. The Biden Administration effectively halted the current plans by Twin Metals, a Chilean subsidiary, to build a copper-nickel mine just south of the BWCA in 2023 by placing a 20-year moratorium on all mining there. But Hartinger and others say the recent executive order lays the groundwork for reversing that action and re-opening the door to Twin Metals' mine. 'This executive order threatens all of America's iconic landscapes — including the Boundary Waters,' executive director of Save the Boundary Waters Ingrid Lyons tells OL in an emailed statement. 'We will continue to track this and the several other pathways this Administration is using to undermine science, the law, and the will of the people on the issue of protecting the Boundary Waters — America's favorite and now most threatened Wilderness area.' Read Next: The Wilderness War: Ice Fishing the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area The current text of the order emphasizes fewer regulations around permitting mining claims and fewer environmental protections regarding the disposal of waste rock and mine tailings. It does not rule out certain kinds of federal lands, such as parks or monuments, and it directs government agencies to amend or revise the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 'as necessary' to support mining as the primary use of those lands. Enacted in 1976, FLPMA established the Bureau of Land Management's mandate to manage public lands for a variety of uses (recreation, mining, and timber production being just a few) while ensuring the long-term health and productivity of those lands. 'Now, will they do that in every single area [with known mineral deposits]? It's unclear. But we certainly have a sense of some of the places that are the most threatened,' Hartinger says. 'In addition to the Boundary Waters, I think the greater Grand Canyon region could very much be under threat.' By invoking its wartime powers with the executive order, the Trump administration claims that taking a mining-first approach is vital to shore up national security and compete with foreign hostile nations. But its actions via executive order stand to benefit the international mining conglomerates that are already operating on U.S. federal lands and which, Hartinger says, are not required to pay royalties or other fees for their right to mine. 'This would use taxpayer funding to issue loans and capital assistance, and essentially subsidize these operations. So not only are these companies getting the land for free, and the minerals for free, and the ability to dump their waste basically wherever they want. We're going to pay them with taxpayer money to do that.' This would be a significant step toward the Trump administration's larger plans to unleash American energy. It also aligns with other moves the administration has made in recent weeks, including the creation of a federal Task Force that aims to sell off 'underutilized' public lands for affordable housing developments. These actions, along with mass layoffs at the federal agencies that manage our public lands, all point toward a common goal. Read Next: How Seriously Should We Take the Sale of Federal Lands? Very Seriously, Experts Say 'I think it's helpful to think about this as part of a pattern. And, you know, it's very concerning to us to hear Secretary Burgum saying our federal lands are assets on the nation's balance sheet,' Hartinger says. 'But I think it's very instructive, too. Because this administration sees our public lands not as things that provide inherent and intrinsic benefits to us, in the form of clean water and air, recreation, wildlife habitat, or any of these myriad uses. It is purely a matter of: How can we extract the maximum short-term dollars from these places?'
The Independent
04-03-2025
- General
- The Independent
Australian minister taken to court over 11 threatened species
What do the Australian lungfish, ghost bat, sandhill dunnart and southern and central greater gliders have in common? They're all threatened species that need a formal 'recovery plan' – but do not have one. Today, environmental group the Wilderness Society launched a case in the Federal Court against Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek, arguing she and successive environment ministers have failed to meet their legal obligations to create threatened species recovery plans. Other species forming the basis of the case are Baudin's cockatoo, the Australian grayling, Carnaby's black cockatoo, red goshawk, forest red-tailed black cockatoo and the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle. Many other species and ecological communities also don't have recovery plans. If successful, the case would set a precedent compelling future environment ministers to meet their legal obligations and improve Australia's dire conservation record. This is a significant moment for conservation in Australia – testing how accountable environment ministers are in preventing species extinctions. Why do recovery plans matter? Threatened species recovery plans lay out very clearly why species or ecological communities are in trouble and the actions necessary to save them. Once a plan is in place, it can directly benefit the species by tackling threats and safeguarding habitat. Proposals such as a new farm, suburb or mining project can be assessed by the environment minister and rejected if they are inconsistent with recovery plans and place threatened species at increased risk of extinction. Recovery plans have helped dozens of species come back from the brink. Under Australia's national environmental laws, the environment minister must decide whether a recovery plan is required for a species or ecological community listed as threatened. If a plan is ordered, it must typically be created within three years. But a 2022 Auditor-General's report found just 2 per cent of plans met this timeframe. Successive governments have failed to keep up with creating and implementing recovery plans in a timely manner. The perennial and chronic lack of funding for conservation means there's little capacity to do the vital but time-consuming work of planning and recovery. As a result, the federal government has increasingly shifted to offering conservation advices in place of recovery plans. Conservation advices can be produced and updated faster than recovery plans. This is useful if, say, a new threat emerges and needs a rapid response. But there's a key legal difference. When the environment minister is considering a project such as land clearing for new farmland or a mine, they need only consider any conservation advice in place. When a recovery plan is in place, the minister is legally obliged not to approve actions which are contrary to its objectives and would make the plight of a species or ecological community worse. A conservation advice can be thought of more like a fact sheet without the same legal weight or accountability that recovery plans have. In March 2022, the Morrison government scrapped recovery plans for 176 threatened species and habitats, despite thousands of submissions arguing against this. After the Albanese government took power in May 2022, it pledged to end 'wilful neglect' of the environment and to introduce stronger environmental laws. Sadly, this commitment has not been honoured. Why do we need recovery plans? Australia's species protection record is unenviable. Since European colonisation, more than 100 species have been driven to extinction and more than 2,000 species and ecological communities are listed at risk of suffering the same fate. For a species to be considered threatened, its population has to have shrunk or meet other criteria putting it at risk of extinction. The severity of the decline and hence its extinction risk will determine how it's categorised, from vulnerable through to critically endangered. Recovery plans lay out the research required to actually recover these species, meaning helping their populations to grow out of the danger zone. A key role for these plans is to coordinate planning and action between relevant interest groups and agencies. This is especially important for species found across state and territory borders, such as the southern greater glider and the migratory swift parrot. The greater glider should have had a recovery plan in place since 2016, but does not. Are individual plans still worthwhile? Faced with so many species in need of protection and limited funding, prominent figures including former Environment Minister Peter Garrett have argued we should focus our efforts on protecting ecosystems rather than single species to make the best use of scarce funds. But there is a deeper issue. Australia is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It has the capacity to greatly increase conservation spending without impoverishing humans, and should do so for the benefit of the economy, culture and our health and wellbeing. That's not to say ecosystem protection isn't worthwhile. After all, ecosystems are made up of species and their interactions with each other and their environment. You cannot have healthy species without healthy ecosystems and vice versa. But if we focus only on protecting large expanses of wetland, forest and grasslands, we risk overlooking a key issue. Two species in the same ecosystem can be very differently affected by a specific threat (predation by foxes, for instance). Some species can even have conflicting management needs. For some species, invasive species are the biggest threat, while climate change and intensified fire regimes threaten others the most. Extinction is a choice As Australia's natural world continues to deteriorate, climate change deepens and worsening wildlife woes abound, these issues will no doubt be front of mind for many in the upcoming federal election. It can be easy to see these trends as inevitable. But they are not – the collapse of nature is a choice. We have what we need for success, including traditional, ecological and conservation knowledge. What's sorely needed is political will. There were once fewer than 50 northern hairy-nosed wombats alive. Today, that number exceeds 400. When supported, conservation can succeed. Almost all Australians want their government to do more to save our species. Let us hope whoever forms the next government takes up that challenge – even if it takes court cases to prompt action.
The Guardian
04-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Threatened species: court asked to compel Australian ministers to create recovery plans
One of Australia's largest conservation organisations has launched legal action alleging that successive federal environment ministers failed to meet their obligation to create recovery plans for native species threatened with extinction. The Wilderness Society (TWS) filed the proceedings in the federal court on Monday. Eleven endangered species, including the greater glider (Petauroides volans), the ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) and the Baudin's cockatoo (Zanda baudinii), will feature in the case. Recovery plans set out action needed to bring species back from the brink of extinction and put them on a better trajectory. TWS, represented by Environmental Justice Australia, will allege that the failure by environment ministers to make recovery plans for threatened plants and animals that had been identified as requiring them was unlawful. 'This case will shine a light on the legal and moral duties of current and future environment ministers to do their job to help Aussie wildlife beat extinction,' said the TWS biodiversity policy and campaign manager, Sam Szoke-Burke. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'For decades, government after government has failed to make recovery plans for hundreds of threatened species that are in dire need of better care.' The case is asking the court to compel the environment minister to make recovery plans for the 11 species named in the application. Under Australia's national environmental laws, the minister decides whether a species requires a recovery plan or not. If the minister decides a species does require one, the plan must usually be made within three years. Once a recovery plan is enacted, the minister must not make decisions that would be considered contrary to its goals and actions. The legal challenge follows long-held concerns about a backlog of unfinished and undeveloped plans for species including the greater glider, which has required a recovery plan since 2016 but has no plan in place. 'Recovery plans are legally required,' Szoke-Burke said. Guardian Australia has reported extensively on the failure by successive governments to make recovery plans within the required time frames. An auditor general's report in 2022 found only 2% of recovery plans had been completed within their statutory timeframe since 2013. In 2020 the federal environment department told a Senate estimates hearing that 170 plants, animals and habitats were waiting for recovery plans. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion To reduce the backlog, the previous Coalition government had the threatened species scientific committee reassess whether some species still required a plan and, in 2022, scrapped the requirement for almost 200 plants, animals and habitats. The golden sun moth was one of the species the minister at that time decided still required a recovery plan. The moth has been identified as requiring a plan since 2009. The government's threatened fauna list shows that plan still has not been made. In addition to the greater glider, the ghost bat and the Baudin's cockatoo, eight other species will feature in the TWS case: the Australian grayling, the Australian lungfish, Carnaby's black cockatoo, the forest red-tailed black cockatoo, the red goshawk, the sandhill dunnart and the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle. Some of these species previously had plans but those plans have expired and new ones have not been adopted. 'Too many of Australia's most iconic and threatened species simply don't have recovery plans,' said an Environmental Justice Australia senior specialist lawyer, Ellen Maybery, adding: 'Our client hopes this case will set a precedent that compels all future environment ministers to create recovery plans and pull these unique species back from the brink of extinction.' The environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, said she could not comment on details of the case because the matter is before the federal court. With an election looming, Plibersek claimed Labor had a stronger record than the Coalition when it came to protecting nature and acting on climate change.
