Latest news with #USFS
Newsweek
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
What Donald Trump Has Said About Selling Off Federal Land
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. President Donald Trump has been clear that he supports the sale of federal land, a view which was echoed in the Senate's recently released recommendations for his budget bill. His administration has already been taking action on the matter, such as creating a task force to survey suitable land for building affordable housing, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. Why It Matters The federal government owns around 640 million acres of public land, which accounts for nearly a third of all land in the United States. That land is managed by multiple agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Public lands have a wide range of uses, not just as national parks, but also as conservation sites and wildlife habitats. Trump has long held the view that this land could be put to better use by providing additional housing for Americans, but conservation advocacy groups disagree. The Wilderness Society said that "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 Senate's proposals for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes "local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors." Newsweek reached out to the BLM and the USFS via email for comment. What To Know Utah Senator Mike Lee shared a clip on X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday of Trump saying last year: "Well we want to have land so we can have housing have so much land and we want to put it to use, so we're going to have land release, and on that land we're going to build housing." President Donald Trump at the White House on June 18, 2025. President Donald Trump at the White House on June 18, 2025. Alex Brandon/AP Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order that appeared to indicate that selling off the public land could provide the federal government with vital funding. The White House stated that the order to establish a "Sovereign Wealth Fund" would "help maximize the stewardship of our national wealth." "The Federal government directly holds $5.7 trillion in assets. Indirectly, including through natural resource reserves, the Federal government holds a far larger sum of asset value," the White House said, which the Center for American Progress reported could be a hint at public land. Last week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's version of the tax and spending legislation included a measure that would be the largest single sale of national public land in modern history, aimed at generating revenue and addressing the "housing crisis." The proposals called for BLM and USFS to sell more than 2 million acres over the next five years, with a total of 258 million acres now legally available for potential sale. What People Are Saying Jonathan Barth, a professor of history at Arizona State University, Thursday on X: "Those who live in the Western states have a better understanding of this issue. The federal government owns 47 percent of the land in the Western states. The vast majority of these lands are not the national parks that we all cherish and love. They're land that is squandered away through total neglect. We're not talking about Yellowstone or Zion or the Grand Canyon, etc. Literally half of the American West remains undeveloped because the feds, including the original BLM, won't allow it. "Take a road trip through the American West and you'll be astounded by how much land is completely and totally unused. The Eastern U.S. used to be like that too -- until it was settled and developed, which I assume most of you think was a good idea? My only hesitation is the possibility of foreign-run companies buying it up. That should be strictly prohibited in any legislation." The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 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 Happens Next The committee's proposals on the sale of federal land, unveiled on June 11 and revised on June 14, are still subject to debate and potential amendment as the Senate deliberates over Trump's tax bill ahead of the self-imposed deadline of July 4.
The Independent
a day ago
- Politics
- The Independent
‘The stakes are life and death': The US is not prepared for wildfire season after sweeping DOGE cuts, report says
As summer temperatures begin to rise and another dangerous wildfire season looms, a new report warns the U.S. is underprepared due to sweeping budget and staffing cuts under the Trump administration. Federal agencies are grappling with reduced workforces, diminished resources, and weakened emergency infrastructure just as extreme summer heat and drought are taking hold of many states out West. Experts and current firefighters say the situation is dire. 'If this turns out to be a major fire year, it's going to be a s*** show,' Dr. Hugh Safford, a fire ecologist and former U.S. Forest Service (USFS) official, told The Guardian. Safford spent more than two decades working for the service before retiring in 2021. Five federal firefighters echoed the same concern to the outlet, speaking anonymously due to restrictions, all answering 'no' when asked if their agencies were ready. Already, wildfires have destroyed homes in Oregon, and more than 8.5 million acres have burned across Canada. Climate forecasters predict above-average fire potential this year across California, Montana, Texas, and much of the Pacific Northwest. But despite these warnings, there have been major staffing cuts. USFS Chief Tom Schultz told a Senate committee the agency is 'well-positioned,' citing the hiring of 11,000 firefighters—900 fewer than last year—and 37 incident management teams, down from 42, The Guardian reported. But lawmakers and fire experts disagree. 'The reality is on the ground, we have lost workers whose jobs are absolutely essential,' Senator Patty Murray said in response, citing a loss of 7,500 USFS employees, including maintenance staff, administrators, and qualified on-call firefighters. 'The stakes are life and death here – and this raises serious alarms about this agency being ready for this critical fire season,' she added. Cutbacks have strained fire operations. Some crews lack access to supplies, paychecks have been delayed or halved, and workers are filling roles far beyond their scope—mowing lawns, managing campsites, or doing their own plumbing. 'Those agencies were already understaffed,' Lenya N. Quinn-Davidson, director of the University of California's Fire Network, said. 'Now they are skeletal.' The Trump administration has pushed an early retirement program that 4,800 USFS workers have joined, including 1,400 with critical 'red card' fire qualifications. Schultz admitted there was no strategic analysis of who left or what skills were lost. Now, the Department of Agriculture is scrambling to re-enlist those workers for the fire season. 'I don't expect many to return,' said one fire planner. 'The loss of experience is immense.' Another complication came when an executive order was issued last week, giving agencies 90 days to consolidate all federal firefighters under a new Department of the Interior agency. Firefighters have concerns that the rushed implementation could create more chaos during peak fire season. 'It seems like a joke if you can't even pay my guys or get them insurance,' an USFS squad leader said. 'I like the idea of a firefighter-led agency. But I don't have faith in these people putting it together.' Grants that support wildfire mitigation on local, state, tribal, and private lands were halved this year and are set to be eliminated next year. Nearly $100 million intended to support rural and volunteer fire departments was withheld, The Guardian reported. 'The administration's budget for Forest Service research is $0—for the world's most important forest research organization,' Safford said. The administration also rolled back climate science initiatives and scaled down weather forecasting capacity. NOAA and National Weather Service layoffs have hampered early warning systems in fire-prone areas. So states are stepping in to compensate. California issued $72 million in fire mitigation grants last month. Colorado allocated $7 million this spring. 'Forest fires aren't going to take four years off just because of who's in the White House,' Governor Jared Polis told Politico. Schultz acknowledged a shift is underway to push more responsibility onto states and local governments. That shift, Quinn-Davidson said, underscores the importance of empowering communities to lead on fire prevention. 'The more we can empower people at the local level, the more resilient we'll be in the face of disaster,' Quinn-Davidson said. But with the season already underway, many fear the consequences of federal disinvestment may soon be felt. As one firefighter put it: 'I'm not seeing our interests being represented. That could be catastrophic.'
Miami Herald
3 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
3 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.
New York Post
13-06-2025
- Science
- New York Post
Invasive Asian insects spreading across 20 US states can cause hives, vomiting — and even death
The spotted lanternfly might be the least of your worries this summer. Experts are sounding the alarm about the Asian needle ant — a tiny but dangerous insect moving across the US whose sting can lead to severe and even deadly reactions. As Americans flock outdoors to soak up the sunshine, scientists are urging caution so that your summertime fun doesn't end with a trip to the emergency room. 4 Asian needle ants have a unique and highly painful sting. Samuel – What are Asian needle ants? Known to scientists as Brachyponera chinensis, the Asian needle ant hails from China, Japan and the Koreas. It was first spotted in the States back in the 1930s, according to a report by the US Forest Service (USFS). These ants are small — about 0.2 inches long — with shiny dark brown to black bodies. They're often mistaken for other species, making them easy to miss. Where are they now? Asian needle ants have popped up in 20 states so far, mainly in the Northeast and Southeast, but reports have come in from as far as Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Washington, according to These pests can survive cooler weather and start appearing as early as March, but their numbers peak in June and July. Asian needle ants are often found in moist, shaded areas, like leaf litter, under rocks and inside dead logs. They can also nest in potted plants, under wood piles and in lawns. 4 Asian needle ants are commonly found in forested areas. Diane Macdonald – 'People don't typically notice them,' Dan Suiter, a professor of urban entomology at the University of Georgia, recently told the university. 'Unlike, say, fire ants, which build a mound, the Asian needle ant doesn't establish foraging trails — those lines of ants you can see.' Why are they dangerous? Asian needle ants aren't as aggressive as fire ants and usually flee from humans. But when disturbed — like if you reach into their mulch or wood piles — they'll sting in self-defense. And that sting packs a punch. 'Imagine somebody inserting a needle directly into your flesh,' Benoit Guénard, a professor of ecology and entomology at the University of Hong Kong who studied the ants in North Carolina, told USA Today. 'It's a very sharp, acute pain but it's quite local,' he added. 4 Redness of the skin and mild to severe hives are common symptoms of a sting. RFBSIP – To make matters worse, the pain can come and go in waves. 'The first, initial pain lasted a few seconds. Then about five minutes later, when the pain had eased, I felt 'ouch!' as if somebody had stung me again in the same place,' Guénard said. 'For me, it goes on for about two hours … But I know in some people it lasts for as much as 24 to 48 hours.' Victims can also develop skin reactions like hives, itching and flushed or pale skin. In more serious cases, stings can trigger nausea, vomiting, dizziness, a rapid pulse, swelling of the tongue or throat, difficulty breathing and even psychological symptoms, like a sense of impending doom. The biggest threat is anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that can strike within seconds of being stung. 4 If you have a history of allergic reactions to insect stings, you might be at a greater risk for anaphylaxis. brizmaker – A study from the ants' native range found that 2.1% of people stung suffered severe, potentially life-threatening reactions. Experts say those with allergies to other insect stings are especially vulnerable. In Georgia alone, Suiter received three calls last year about anaphylactic shock following stings from Asian needle ants. 'I fully expect that some people who end up in the emergency room were stung by them but didn't realize it,' he told Scientific American. 'If you suffer from anaphylaxis, you should really know what this ant looks like,' he warned. 'And it might be smart to carry an EpiPen.' The USFS urges anyone experiencing an allergic reaction to seek immediate medical attention.
