Grizzly bears are returning to the North Cascades in Washington State, which has not had a grizzly sighting since 1996. The decision to repopulate the state’s mountainous region came after intense debate. Some viewed it as a positive conservation effort, while others worried about the potential harm towards humans and livestock.
Growing the grizzlies
Grizzly bears were once staples of the North Cascades in Washington but “declined primarily due to direct killing by humans,” said the National Park Service. Now the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have decided to “restore grizzly bears to the North Cascades ecosystem through the translocation of grizzly bears from other ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains or interior British Columbia.” The species is a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The plan is to restore three to seven bears a year for five to 10 years in order to achieve an initial population of 25. Ultimately, the agencies aim to restore the population to 200 over the next 60 to 100 years.
The repopulation plan would designate the grizzly bears as a nonessential experimental population under the Endangered Species Act, which allows “authorities greater latitude to catch or kill bears to stop conflicts between the animals and humans” and allows “landowners in some areas to obtain a permit to kill a grizzly under specific circumstances,” said Scientific American. This is especially the case if the bears pose a threat to livestock.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Advertisement
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week’s Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The population of grizzly bears has significantly declined since the 1800s, from approximately 50,000 to just under 2,000 today in the continental U.S. They currently occupy four of six established recovery areas in parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and northeast Washington “We are going to once again see grizzly bears on the landscape, restoring an important thread in the fabric of the North Cascades,” said Don Striker, the superintendent of North Cascades National Park Service Complex. There is no timeline as to when the repopulation efforts will begin.
Bearing the debate
While the federal agencies have agreed to restore the grizzlies, there was a fierce debate as to whether doing so was the right course of action. “As the monthslong process played out, debate over human-bear conflict revealed a surprising range of views about what it means to belong to an ecosystem,” said Scientific American. “It also invited a fundamental question: What, exactly, were the grizzlies supposed to bring back?”
Advertisement
Those opposed to the decision feared for the safety of their livestock. “We already have predator issues in the state. We don’t need another apex predator when we can’t deal with what we have,” Rachel McClure, a rancher and secretary of the Okanogan County Cattlemen’s Association, said to NBC News. “We’re busy dealing with wolves. We don’t need to be thinking about bears.” In addition, the process of repopulating the North Cascades is long and complicated. It requires “trapping, trucking and moving bears by helicopter from British Columbia or northwestern Montana,” said NBC News. “As long as it’s taken to get here, it’s just the start,” Joe Scott, the international programs associate director at Conservation Northwest, said to the source. “The actual implementation is not a slam dunk.”
Others have applauded the effort to return the species to the habitat it once called home. The animals have the potential to greatly affect their ecosystem. “Bear scat would disperse seeds across the landscape. Their massive claws would turn up and aerate soil when they dig for roots and rodents,” said Scientific American. The shift also has a chance to right the wrongs of generations past. “Our culture had a war on these species and we know better now, and this is a chance for us to tell a different story,” Gordon Congdon, a retired orchardist who lives in Washington, said to NBC News.
To continue reading this article…
Create a free account
Continue reading this article and get limited website access each month.
Advertisement
Already have an account? Sign in
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Week
Get unlimited website access, exclusive newsletters plus much more.
Cancel or pause at any time.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Already a subscriber to The Week?
Unlimited website access is included with Digital and Print + Digital subscriptions. Create an accountwith the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Another one of President Donald Trump’s lawsuits against a news organization has fizzled out.
This time, it is a defamation lawsuit that the Trump Media and Technology Group brought against The Washington Post in 2023 over a story titled “Trust linked to porn-friendly bank could gain a stake in Trump’s Truth Social.”
A federal judge in Florida has thrown out the suit, saying that Trump Media “failed to present evidence that would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence” that The Post “published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice.”
US District Judge Thomas Barber’s conclusion came during the summary judgment phase of the case, when a judge can evaluate evidence and make a determination before proceeding to trial.
Advertisement
The Post’s lawyers argued that Trump Media could not prove “actual malice,” the high legal standard that public figures must meet to prevail in a defamation case. It means that the defendant either knew a claim was false or displayed “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
The Post’s reporter who wrote the story in question, Drew Harwell, “thoroughly investigated” the subject and “had confidence in the article’s accuracy at the time of publication,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote.
In a summary docket entry last week, first reported by Reason magazine, Barber sided with the Post. He said he would issue a full opinion later.
The Post itself reported on the legal victory on Tuesday. “We are pleased with the court’s decision and look forward to reviewing its written order upon release,” a spokesperson told CNN.
A spokesperson for Trump Media did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment, but the company told The Post, “We believe a jury should decide whether these falsehoods were actionable and will evaluate whether to appeal last week’s ruling in due course. We will also continue to hold the media accountable.”
Advertisement
Trump Media positions itself as an opponent of, and an alternative to, traditional tech and media companies. It is best known for operating Truth Social, a relatively small social network favored by the president.
The publicly traded company has been losing money for years; it made less than $1 million in revenue in the first quarter of this year, according to public filings.
The company has repeatedly filed lawsuits over news coverage it deemed false. A defamation lawsuit against The Guardian and other defendants was thrown out by a different Florida judge last November. Trump Media initially filed an amended complaint, but then dropped the matter altogether in April.
Trump Media’s suit against the Post accused the newspaper of a “conspiracy” to harm the company and sought $3.8 billion in damages.
The lawsuit lawyers succeeded in narrowing the case considerably and asserted that Truth Media could not satisfy the “heavy burden” of the actual malice standard.
Advertisement
In May, while awaiting the judge’s ruling, The Post published a correction to the 2023 story stating that “discovery in the ongoing litigation has established” that two assertions in the story were incorrect. But the correction emphasized that the assertions were “based on The Post’s reporting at the time of publication.”
Trump and his businesses have a long history of getting publicity from lawsuits, only to see judges later throw them out.
In April, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a lewd birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein bearing his name. Trump refiled that suit in May. He also has pending litigation against the BBC, The New York Times and the Des Moines Register.
Washington DC residents breathed in “unhealthy” air for hours after a 40-minute Independence Day fireworks show over the National Mall on Saturday night, with the country’s capital briefly recording the worst air quality of any major city in the world.
The highly emitting display, which the president called “spectacular”, came as the Trump administration rolls back an unprecedented number of pollution controls.
Hourly concentrations of particulate matter rose to 6.7 times their pre-fireworks levels, according to a Tuesday analysis from the company Clarity Movement based on its network of 26 air quality sensors throughout the city in partnership with the local department of energy and environment. Every one of those sensors reached air quality levels which the Environmental Protection Agency deems “unhealthy for sensitive groups” during the event, the researchers found, with some recording even worse levels of emissions.
Levels of particulate matter peaked at 4am on Sunday, approximately five hours after the display concluded, according to the new analysis. It remained elevated for approximately five hours after reaching its peak, the authors found, with city officials issuing a Code Red alert.
Advertisement
Smoke hangs in the air as the Independence Day fireworks launch over Washington. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images
“Outdoor air quality is unhealthy for seniors, kids, people with medical conditions,” the alert said. “General public may experience health issues. Limit time outside.”
The south-west region of DC experienced the highest pollution levels, the report’s authors found, probably because of its proximity to one of the fireworks launch sites in West Potomac park, as well as overnight meteorological conditions that trapped smoke over the area.
That highly polluted air probably drifted into Arlington, Virginia, said David Lu, CEO and co-founder of Clarity Movement.
“Unfortunately, we don’t have sensors there to confirm it,” he said. “That’s exactly why expanding real-time air quality monitoring matters. Without comprehensive coverage, communities can be exposed to significant pollution events that go undetected.”
The air quality across the city could have been even worse in the aftermath of the display if it were not for thunderstorms that struck the city on Sunday evening.
Advertisement
Smoke hangs in the air as the Independence Day fireworks launch over Washington. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images
“Despite the scale of the fireworks display, the city’s air quality avoided a worst-case scenario thanks to favorable weather conditions and the timing of the event,” said Lu.
The Fourth of July fireworks show, organized by the Trump-backed non-profit Freedom 250, began at 11pm on Saturday evening. It involved more than 850,000 fireworks launched from 10 sites across the capital, the organizers said. (A typical Independence Day show in DC involves just 17,000 shells.)
Trump on social media called the show “the Most Spectacular Fireworks Show I have ever seen, and I’ve seen them all”.
The fanfare came as the region was baking under an extreme heatwave, which brought triple-digit temperatures to the city hours earlier. For a time after the fireworks show, the city recorded the worst air quality of any major city in the world, according to AirNow, the Environmental Protection Agency website that reports air quality measurements from its monitoring stations.
Asked to comment, a White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said: “It was the largest and greatest firework display in the history of our country to properly celebrate America’s 250th birthday! Every year, fireworks on the Fourth of July cause short-term spikes in air quality across the United States, including Washington, DC. This was not unique to the 250th fireworks celebrations in our nation’s capital.”
Advertisement
The Guardian has contacted Freedom 250 for comment.
Americans shoot nearly 300m lb of fireworks into the atmosphere every year, according to the American Lung Association, letting off lung-harming gases such as sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.
The Trump administration has, since re-entering office, engaged in a wide-ranging assault on pollution controls, exempting polluting facilities from emissions regulations, boosting coal power, and halting the consideration of the value of lives saved when restricting fine particulate matter and ozone. On 4 July, the president also pardoned nine individuals convicted of violations related to the Clean Air Act, including people found to have tampered with emissions control equipment in cars or selling parts to bypass air pollution standards.
The Washington Commanders are looking for a bounce back performance from their offense, and they’ll need their wide receivers to take a step up to do so.
Terry McLaurin is the clear No. 1 option at the position, but after him, there are several questions about how the rest of the room will shake out. The No. 2 spot is wide open, and there are several players who could fit the role and others in David Blough’s new scheme. Analysts Santana Moss, Logan Paulsen and Fred Smoot broke down the position on one of the most recent “Command Center” podcast episodes, and as one of the franchise’s all-time best receivers, Moss had a few thoughts on the group. Here’s his assessment on three wideouts and how they could fit into the offense.
“Knowing that he can play both outside and inside, I would think with some of the guys and their size and their experience, I would mainly probably see Antonio attack that middle. I think his route running ability is already to the level of some of these guys who have already played at this level. And just showing me that you don’t look like that this is new to you … He ain’t scared to go out and compete against these guys. To me — and we don’t know anything; we’re just sitting here speculating and assuming — I’d say he’s a slot guy out the gate.”
“I think if I had to just say if I look at that paper, and I asked any coach in this building by name how they think this guy played…if you tell me that Burks played well this offseason, he would be my No. 2 out the gate. He would be my No. 2 wide receiver because one: he brings size, he brings speed, he brings a gear at that size that a lot of people ain’t comfortable checking … You got a guy with size, leaping ability, the catch radius and can run.”
Advertisement
“They talk about how he was one of those guys from Day 1 that could play every position, and that’s stemming from him being a quarterback. Quarterbacks learn the game a little different from just a regular skill position guy. Luke came in here, and he knew X, he knew Z, he knew Gator. When you have those intangibles and you have that kind of mindset when it comes to playing that position, they can use him where they want to use him. That’s why I said he’s a great committee guy. He’s a guy that I know I’m gonna have on special teams as a returner, and guess what? If he’s not the starter, I’m okay with that because I know I’m going to ask more of him if somebody needs to take a breather.