Latest news with #BLM
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
Hikers in Oregon and Washington beauty spots warned to watch out for unexpectedly angry animals
Hikers have been warned to watch out for angry animals causing chaos across hundreds of miles of picturesque countryside spanning Oregon and Washington. The Bureau of Land Management has issued an alert about 'aggressive mountain goats' following several incidents involving boaters on the Grande Ronde River. Officials shared the advisory for areas between Alder Creek close to Portland, and Meadow Creek which lies around 300 miles east of the Oregon city. 'Recently, boaters have encounter two aggressive nannies in the area with their kids,' Oregon and Washington's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) said in the alert. 'Wildlife can be dangerous, especially when protecting their young, so please avoid camping in any location where mountain goats or other wildlife are present.' Hikers could come across several animals including mountain lions, bobcats, moose and mountain goats close to the Grande Ronde River, according to the BLM. The river winds northwest through the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest just east of the Blue Mountains in Oregon, through to the mid-Snake River in Washington. While it is relatively rare to encounter a mountain goat on the route, several unlucky boaters have come into contact with them this year. The BLM advised staying at least 50 yards away from mountain goats, keeping dogs leashed, and urinating at least 50 yards away from the trail or campsite. Officials also urged hikers to avoid feeding the horned animals, or leaving clothes, gear or food unattended. If a mountain goat approaches, hikers should try to back away slowly rather than running as this could encourage the angry animals to chase. The BLM advises yelling at the goats if they charge, while waving your arms in the air and throwing rocks in their direction to ward them away. Anyone who encounters any aggressive wildlife should contact the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife via 541-426-3279. Dial 911 for emergencies. Deadly mountain goat attacks are extremely rare. The last recorded fatality from a goat attack in the US was October 2010, when a man was gored in Washington state while he was having a picnic with his wife and friend. Robert Boardman suffered a deadly leg wound when a goat, which was known for its aggressive behavior, charged at him on Klahhane Ridge in Olympic National Park. After goring the 63-year-old hiker, the goat stood over him and rangers pelted it with rocks until it retreated. Boardman was transported by US Coast Guard helicopter to the hospital in Port Angeles, where he was pronounced dead. Mountain goats are around three to four foot tall on average. Males weigh 150 to 300 pounds on average, while females weigh between 125 and 250 pounds. Experts estimate that around 3,500 mountain goats live across Oregon and Washington.
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Map Shows Where 250 Million Acres of Public Land is Being Sold Off
The largest single sale of national public land in modern history could be carried out as part of President Donald Trump's budget bill to help pay for his sweeping tax cuts. However, a professor who is an expert on climate policy questioned the efficacy of the proposals, telling Newsweek that "selling off public lands will not reduce federal spending to any significant degree." Newsweek has contacted the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service via email for comment. The Senate committee said that a lot of the land owned by BLM and USFS cannot be used for housing, and so by opening up portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction, they intend to solve the "housing crisis." However, the nonprofit land conversation organization The Wilderness Society argued the opposite—that research suggests "very little of the land managed by the BLM and USFS is actually suitable for housing." It warned that much of the public land eligible for sale in the bill include "local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors." The organization said the measure "trades ordinary Americans' access to outdoor recreation for a short-term payoff that disproportionately benefits the privileged and well-connected." The measure, which was included in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's version of the tax-and-spending legislation released last week, aims to generate revenue for tax cuts by auctioning off public lands in 11 Western states. The legislation mandates that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) sell more than 2 million acres over the next five years, with a total of 258 million acres now legally available for potential sale. The proposal mandates the nomination of tracts within 30 days, then every 60 days until the multi-million-acre goal is met, all without hearings, debate or public input. The plan is also part of a broader move to generate around $29 billion through a combination of expanded oil, gas, coal and geothermal lease sales, as well as new timber sales. According to The Wilderness Society, the total of USFS and BLM land available for sale under the new proposals for the Senate Reconciliation Bill, which are consolidated in the West, are as follows for each state: Alaska: 82.8 million acresArizona: 14.4 million acresCalifornia: 16.7 million acresColorado: 14.4 million acresIdaho: 21.7 million acresNevada: 33.6 million acresNew Mexico: 14.3 million acresOregon: 21.7 million acresUtah: 18.7 million acresWashington: 5.4 million acresWyoming: 15 million acres Studies show that less than 2 percent of USFS and BLM land is "close enough to population centers to make sense for housing development," Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek. "Economists also found that more than half of federal lands within a quarter mile of towns needing more housing and a population of at least 100 people had high wildfire risk," he added. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said that the proposal is estimated to generate between $5 to $10 billion during the 2025-2034 period. However, whether this move will have a positive financial impact for the government has been debated by experts. Parenteau said "selling off public lands will not reduce federal spending to any significant degree." "There are lands that have been identified for sale or swaps due to the difficulty of managing them like checkerboard lands, but this legislation is not limited to those lands," he said. "The goal is to maximize revenue to offset the massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy." Parenteau added that the mandate also means that ultimately "buyers will have the upper hand." "The percentage of acreage being discussed is too small, in my view, to have any real effect on either the agencies' management budgets or the national debt," Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law, told Newsweek. "Most of these lands, especially remote lands managed by BLM, don't need or receive substantial or intensive management effort by the agencies; instead, they function largely as some of the last remaining ecological habitat for our dwindling wildlife," she said. Although, Wendie L. Kellington, a law attorney at Kellington Law Group, told Newsweek that the legislation "should have a positive budgetary impact on federal land maintenance and holding costs, because 5 percent of the proceeds from land sales must go to addressing the federal government's not insignificant backlog of deferred maintenance on federal BLM and forest lands in the states where the land is sold." She added that is expensive to own land and the federal government "has done a relatively poor job of maintaining its lands." The sale of public lands as part of Trump's tax bill has been a divisive measure, and a proposal to sell around 500,000 acres of federal land in Utah and Nevada was struck off the legislation by the House after some Republican lawmakers opposed the move. A number of Republican representatives launched the bipartisan Public Lands Caucus with the aim of "expanding public access to federal lands, not auctioning them off." Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek: "The legislation sets a target of over 3 million acres to be sold by 2030, but over 200 million acres of public lands would be eligible for sale to the highest bidder which is likely to be real estate developers or wealthy individuals looking for property near major attractions like Lake Tahoe or Gates of the Arctic. "Even though national parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers and other protected areas are excluded, the areas eligible for sale include local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors." He added: "Sales could impact local communities by eliminating access to popular recreation areas for hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, and more, reducing revenues from tourism near gateway communities, imposing more costs for public services like sewage and fire and police protection, increasing air and water pollution depending on what land uses are allowed, and so forth." Wendie L. Kellington, a law attorney at Kellington Law Group, told Newsweek: "The impact should be positive in the states and regions where the land is sold because the federal land to be sold can only be used for the development of housing or to address associated community needs. "The states identified in the bill are ones with disproportionately great housing shortages and affordability challenges. The affected regions will not lose beloved park or conservation lands. Rather, the bill is narrow and expressly prohibits sales of 'federally protected land" which includes national parks, wild and scenic river areas, national wildlife refuges, national historic sites and many other federally protected sites. "The bill is an effort at a federal solution to a well-known, stubborn, serious housing shortage problem that no one has been able to solve for the past three decades." Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law, told Newsweek: "Most federal public land is remote from infrastructure and communities, which means it has little value as land per se on the private market and is unlikely to raise appreciable revenue. Maybe there are some parcels immediately adjacent to human communities and services, but for the most part, developers will not be interested in lands that do not connect to supporting infrastructure, human amenities, or nearby jobs." She added: "Starting in 1976, we largely halted, as a matter of public policy, the very long history of selling or giving away federal lands. And I recently saw yet another poll reaffirming that Americans remain overwhelmingly opposed to the sell-off of public lands, which are considered a national treasure and legacy for future generations." The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committeesaid in its fact sheet on the legislation: "In the West, this means that the federal government is depriving our communities of needed land for housing and inhibiting growth. President Trump recognized the connection between federal land ownership and the housing crisis, which is why he pledged to 'open up portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction.'" It added: "This proposal allows a fraction of 1 percent of federal land to be used to build houses. In doing so, it will create thousands of jobs, allow millions of Americans to realize the American dream, and reduce the deficit and fund our public lands." The committee's proposals, unveiled June 11 and revised June 14, is still subject to debate and potential amendment as the Senate deliberates over Trump's tax bill ahead of the self-set deadline of July 4. Related Articles E. Jean Carroll on 'Comedy Gold' of Trump Trial and How She'll Spend $83MNo Kings Protests or Trump's Army Parade-Which Won the Weekend? Newsweek Contributors DebateDonald Trump's Approval Rating is Suffering With RepublicansHow Recall of 20 Million Eggs Could Affect US Prices 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Map Shows Where 250 Million Acres of Public Land is Being Sold Off
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The largest single sale of national public land in modern history could be carried out as part of President Donald Trump's budget bill to help pay for his sweeping tax cuts. However, a professor who is an expert on climate policy questioned the efficacy of the proposals, telling Newsweek that "selling off public lands will not reduce federal spending to any significant degree." Newsweek has contacted the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service via email for comment. Why It Matters The Senate committee said that a lot of the land owned by BLM and USFS cannot be used for housing, and so by opening up portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction, they intend to solve the "housing crisis." However, the nonprofit land conversation organization The Wilderness Society argued the opposite—that research suggests "very little of the land managed by the BLM and USFS is actually suitable for housing." It warned that much of the public land eligible for sale in the bill include "local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors." The organization said the measure "trades ordinary Americans' access to outdoor recreation for a short-term payoff that disproportionately benefits the privileged and well-connected." What To Know The measure, which was included in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's version of the tax-and-spending legislation released last week, aims to generate revenue for tax cuts by auctioning off public lands in 11 Western states. The legislation mandates that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) sell more than 2 million acres over the next five years, with a total of 258 million acres now legally available for potential sale. The proposal mandates the nomination of tracts within 30 days, then every 60 days until the multi-million-acre goal is met, all without hearings, debate or public input. The plan is also part of a broader move to generate around $29 billion through a combination of expanded oil, gas, coal and geothermal lease sales, as well as new timber sales. According to The Wilderness Society, the total of USFS and BLM land available for sale under the new proposals for the Senate Reconciliation Bill, which are consolidated in the West, are as follows for each state: Alaska : 82.8 million acres : 82.8 million acres Arizona: 14.4 million acres 14.4 million acres California: 16.7 million acres 16.7 million acres Colorado: 14.4 million acres 14.4 million acres Idaho : 21.7 million acres : 21.7 million acres Nevada : 33.6 million acres : 33.6 million acres New Mexico: 14.3 million acres 14.3 million acres Oregon : 21.7 million acres : 21.7 million acres Utah : 18.7 million acres : 18.7 million acres Washington: 5.4 million acres 5.4 million acres Wyoming: 15 million acres Studies show that less than 2 percent of USFS and BLM land is "close enough to population centers to make sense for housing development," Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek. "Economists also found that more than half of federal lands within a quarter mile of towns needing more housing and a population of at least 100 people had high wildfire risk," he added. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said that the proposal is estimated to generate between $5 to $10 billion during the 2025-2034 period. Experts Divided On Sale's Impact However, whether this move will have a positive financial impact for the government has been debated by experts. Parenteau said "selling off public lands will not reduce federal spending to any significant degree." "There are lands that have been identified for sale or swaps due to the difficulty of managing them like checkerboard lands, but this legislation is not limited to those lands," he said. "The goal is to maximize revenue to offset the massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy." Parenteau added that the mandate also means that ultimately "buyers will have the upper hand." "The percentage of acreage being discussed is too small, in my view, to have any real effect on either the agencies' management budgets or the national debt," Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law, told Newsweek. "Most of these lands, especially remote lands managed by BLM, don't need or receive substantial or intensive management effort by the agencies; instead, they function largely as some of the last remaining ecological habitat for our dwindling wildlife," she said. 'A Positive Impact' Although, Wendie L. Kellington, a law attorney at Kellington Law Group, told Newsweek that the legislation "should have a positive budgetary impact on federal land maintenance and holding costs, because 5 percent of the proceeds from land sales must go to addressing the federal government's not insignificant backlog of deferred maintenance on federal BLM and forest lands in the states where the land is sold." She added that is expensive to own land and the federal government "has done a relatively poor job of maintaining its lands." The sale of public lands as part of Trump's tax bill has been a divisive measure, and a proposal to sell around 500,000 acres of federal land in Utah and Nevada was struck off the legislation by the House after some Republican lawmakers opposed the move. A number of Republican representatives launched the bipartisan Public Lands Caucus with the aim of "expanding public access to federal lands, not auctioning them off." What People Are Saying Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek: "The legislation sets a target of over 3 million acres to be sold by 2030, but over 200 million acres of public lands would be eligible for sale to the highest bidder which is likely to be real estate developers or wealthy individuals looking for property near major attractions like Lake Tahoe or Gates of the Arctic. "Even though national parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers and other protected areas are excluded, the areas eligible for sale include local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors." He added: "Sales could impact local communities by eliminating access to popular recreation areas for hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, and more, reducing revenues from tourism near gateway communities, imposing more costs for public services like sewage and fire and police protection, increasing air and water pollution depending on what land uses are allowed, and so forth." Wendie L. Kellington, a law attorney at Kellington Law Group, told Newsweek: "The impact should be positive in the states and regions where the land is sold because the federal land to be sold can only be used for the development of housing or to address associated community needs. "The states identified in the bill are ones with disproportionately great housing shortages and affordability challenges. The affected regions will not lose beloved park or conservation lands. Rather, the bill is narrow and expressly prohibits sales of 'federally protected land" which includes national parks, wild and scenic river areas, national wildlife refuges, national historic sites and many other federally protected sites. "The bill is an effort at a federal solution to a well-known, stubborn, serious housing shortage problem that no one has been able to solve for the past three decades." Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law, told Newsweek: "Most federal public land is remote from infrastructure and communities, which means it has little value as land per se on the private market and is unlikely to raise appreciable revenue. Maybe there are some parcels immediately adjacent to human communities and services, but for the most part, developers will not be interested in lands that do not connect to supporting infrastructure, human amenities, or nearby jobs." She added: "Starting in 1976, we largely halted, as a matter of public policy, the very long history of selling or giving away federal lands. And I recently saw yet another poll reaffirming that Americans remain overwhelmingly opposed to the sell-off of public lands, which are considered a national treasure and legacy for future generations." The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said in its fact sheet on the legislation: "In the West, this means that the federal government is depriving our communities of needed land for housing and inhibiting growth. President Trump recognized the connection between federal land ownership and the housing crisis, which is why he pledged to 'open up portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction.'" It added: "This proposal allows a fraction of 1 percent of federal land to be used to build houses. In doing so, it will create thousands of jobs, allow millions of Americans to realize the American dream, and reduce the deficit and fund our public lands." What's Next The committee's proposals, unveiled June 11 and revised June 14, is still subject to debate and potential amendment as the Senate deliberates over Trump's tax bill ahead of the self-set deadline of July 4.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
BLM warns of ‘aggressive' mountain goats along Oregon river
PORTLAND, Ore. () — Territorial goats of the Pacific Northwest are asking adventure-seekers to get off their lawn. The Bureau of Land Management has alerted the public that 'aggressive mountain goats' haven't given a warm welcome to people riding their boats on the Grande Ronde River between Meadow Creek and Alder Creek. Portland parks to enforce stricter policy, fees for dog owners with off-leash pets 'Recently, boaters have encountered two aggressive nannies in the area with their kids,' BLM Oregon & Washington wrote on last week. 'Wildlife can be dangerous, especially when protecting their young, so please avoid camping in any location where mountain goats or other wildlife are present.' visitors of the Wallowa-Grande Ronde River corridor are likely to see animals like raptors, upland birds, river otters and turkey. Mountain lions, bobcats, moose and mountain goats are a more common sight for 'lucky observers,' according to the bureau. And while the Oregon Department of Wildlife has highlighted mountain goats as the state's , that hasn't stopped boaters from coming into contact with them. Public land officials urge visitors not to feed the animals and to stay at least 50 yards away. People should also keep their dogs leashed, and they shouldn't leave their clothing unattended or urinate in the river or on the rocks within at least 50 yards from their trail or campground. Oregon passes bill investing public employee retirement funds into clean energy If a mountain goat does approach someone, BLM encourages the person to try to move away slowly instead of running. Otherwise, they should chase the animal off by yelling, waving their arms or clothing, or throwing rocks. Officials want the public to report 'aggressive wildlife encounters' to ODFW. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Sky News AU
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Democrats are slow, clumsy and playing catch up leaving behind 'succession of bin fires' across the US political landscape
The political landscape in the US is a concurrency and succession of bin fires with all the moralising and performative distress you'd expect from the land of the free. The LA riots has shown the world, yet again, the stupidity of certain cohorts who think they will make endearing political points by looting and burning their own neighbourhoods. As if swiping Apple Airpods and Nike kicks will somehow prevent illegal immigrants being deported. It's like BLM all over again just without the lucrative GoFundMe pages and the corporate sycophancy. And yet again, local Democrat law enforcement have been clumsy when it comes to their core business of law enforcement. They are much better equipped at throwing their toys out of the cot when the Feds turn up to do their homework for them. My personal favourite moment from the riots is the photo of a protester with an ankle monitor bracelet, face mask, holding a T-shirt saying 'F*** ICE'. It tells you all you need to know about the intellectual rigour guiding this latest round of anti-establishment vitriol. What is similarly egregious is how progressives and their friends in the media, who should know better, are making all manner of excuses for the behaviour – or in the case of the Democrat Mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson - encouraging residents to 'resist'. Zero responsibility. Zero moral clarity. Zero care for those wearing the consequences of both the riots and the social costs associated with careless levels of illegal immigration. You will all recall Democrat Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass, of LA wildfires infamy. Short on water, firefighters and fire trucks, Mayor Bass was hobnobbing in Ghana when the fires first broke out. She was too late and too slow to that disaster and insofar as the LA riots are concerned, all I can say is that at least she is consistent. Ms Bass has been criticised by a former LAPD detective for being too slow and too tolerant of the riots and is 'now trying to play catch up'. Sound familiar? Has she learned anything? No – same underperformance and same blame shifting. Progressive leadership at its finest. But it's not just politics at the local level. Karine Jean-Pierre, the former Biden Press Secretary, wasted no time releasing a book about her time in the 'broken' Biden White House. Apparently, she's leaving the Democrats and registering as an independent. I appreciate that when you're dumped out of government it's imperative to put 'your truth' on the record and pray someone will give you a job. Her predecessor, Jen Psaki is now a host at MSNBC and is rolling out the Democrat talking points with her usual shameless alacrity. Sadly, for Jean-Pierre, the fact that she has sought to distance herself from the Democrats means the Democratic PR machine has sought to torch whatever skerrick of her credibility that remains. And it really is a skerrick at best – imagine being sent out - over and over - to defend Biden's mental acuity and then expecting people from outside your political coterie to take you seriously. Which is what she did during her tenure as the press secretary. And that's not the end of it. Long gone are the days when she was lauded as the first black woman, and the first LGBTQI+ press secretary. She has now turned against the Democrats which has left her diversity credit points evaporated along with her position. But there is more. Israel's action against Iran was always going to spark bad takes from Democrats. And they didn't disappoint. Democrat Senator Jack Reed, criticised Israel's 'alarming' decision to launch airstrikes, calling it a 'reckless escalation that risks regional violence'. Another Democrat, Senator Chris Murphy said the strikes were 'clearly intended to scuttle' diplomacy with Iran. Diplomacy with Iran? Like sending them pallets of cash to not to develop nuclear weapons and then watching them take the cash and proceed, as planned, to develop nuclear weapons? That Democrat inspired 'diplomacy' done under the Biden administration in 2023 achieved precisely nothing in aiding peace efforts in the Middle East, and if any, set the process back decades. And lastly, the reaction by some Democrats to the 250th anniversary celebration of the US Army borders on unhinged. I appreciate that not everyone is into military processions, but it is important to celebrate milestones, particularly when you're a military superpower and so many US citizens have served their country in uniform. The anniversary military parade included soldiers marching in historic uniforms, making it as much a nod to the past as a commemoration of more recent service. Californian governor, Gavin Newsom, described it as 'a vulgar demonstration of just how weak [Trump] is' and 'the kind of thing you see with Kim Jong Un, Putin'. He appears to have missed the memo on Trooping the Colour - the parade which occurred on the very same day to mark King Charles' birthday. No dictatorship in the UK, just a military parade to mark an occasion in yet another Western parliamentary democracy. Other Democrats including Senator Tammy Duckworth, Senator Dick Durbin and Representative. Yassamin Ansari criticised the $45 million ($69 million AUD) cost of the parade. And yes, $45 million is a lot of money but it is pretty much a rounding error when you consider the annual defence budget. In fact, that much money gets you about half of a base model F-35 fighter jet. But, you know, the Democrats would never waste money on something purely symbolic. While Trump is in office, expect the huffing and puffing from Democrats to continue. They will disregard the fundamentals and focus their efforts on pet and petty grievance. And remember, the debt ceiling will need to be raised before August to avert default. So, strap yourselves in, and expect some seriously hypocritical handwringing from those not in a position to criticise. Caroline Di Russo is a lawyer with 15 years of experience specialising in commercial litigation and corporate insolvency and since February 2023 has been the Liberal Party President in Western Australia
