Texas lawmakers consider bat protection bill
Testimony was held on a bill that would provide new protections for bats in Texas
Senate Bill 1285 would restrict how and when bats can be removed from buildings
Operators of Austin Bat Refuge in east Austin also testified
AUSTIN, Texas - Texas lawmakers heard testimony on a bill that would provide new protections for bats.
Senate Bill 1285, filed by Austin Democrat Sarah Eckhardt, would restrict how and when bats can be removed from buildings.
The backstory
At the Austin Bat Refuge, more than 100 bats are being nursed back to health.
Lee Mackenzie and Dianne Odegard operate the refuge in East Austin. The two are preparing for summer when bat activity picks up, especially for young pups.
"We're making sure we have all the powders that we use to make the different formulas for the different species of bat babies. And we're hiring our summer interns to help us during the summer when we're raising all the bat pups to release," said Dianne Odegard.
There are 47 bat species in the United States and 32 are located in Texas.
Lee spoke about two bats that recently arrived at the refuge. One bat was found at UT and is not a local frequent flyer.
"Classic Free Tail bats right here, this guy (the larger bat) is supposed to be in Big Bend right now. We have no idea how he got here. He was found in the Astronomy Building at UT and who knows he might have hitched his ride with the astronomers," said Lee Mackenzie.
Dig deeper
Earlier Monday, Dianne and Lee were before the State Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs committee for a hearing. They were among a group testifying on legislation regarding bat remediation and explained why sealing up exterior holes should never be the first step in the removal process.
"We've seen bats, both dead and alive, hanging half out of an exit encased in hardening, expanding foam, or dead and dying on glue traps," said Dianne Odegard.
SB 1285 amends the state parks and wildlife code. It mandates non-lethal techniques, and the bill also prevents removals between May and August, when bat pups are still learning to fly.
Under current law, it's a class c misdemeanor to hunt, purchase, or sell bats, and a special permit is needed to possess them. All that remains in place with Senator Eckhardt's Bat Bill.
The committee also heard about an incident in Abilene at a mall. The controversial removal made headlines two years ago.
"The property manager sealed a bat roost on the side of the mall. When their natural exit to the outside was blocked, these bats ended up flying through the mall directly in the path of the shopping public," said Amanda Lawler with Bat World Sanctuary.
Most of those who testified voiced opposition to an exception in the bill. It allows animal control experts and health officials to deal with bats, anytime when found in occupied buildings.
"They are the ones who do most of the exclusion or removal work around Austin and in occupied buildings, and we want to make sure that they do it, not during baby season, that they exclude bats rather than simply entombing them in a wall," said Mackenzie.
What's next
The bill was left pending in committee with an uncertain future, like the tiny creatures being cared for at the refuge in East Austin.
What you can do
Bat World Sanctuary has more information on the bill and is asking for help.
For more information, click here.
The Source
Information from a Texas legislative committee hearing and interviews conducted by FOX 7 Austin's Rudy Koski
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
22nd District race heats up as endorsements roll in
If it wasn't already, the 2026 election season in Kern County is in full swing. Randy Villegas — now one of at least two Democrats to challenge U.S. Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford — announced an endorsement from the progressive Working Families Party on Monday, setting himself up as a grassroots alternative to the status quo. 'There's an old saying in Spanish, 'dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres,' which translated to English means, 'tell me who you're with, and I'll tell you who you are,'' Villegas said Monday at a rally in front of Valadao's Bakersfield office. 'The same thing can be said about politics. Tell me who you're taking money from, and I'll tell you who you're actually working for,' Villegas said. A Visalia Unified School District board member and a political science professor at College of the Sequoias, Villegas was the first Democrat to officially throw his hat into the ring for California's 22nd Congressional District race. The district is seen as one of the most vulnerable in the nation, and though Valadao has been able to mostly hold onto his seat since 2013, he's been voted out once and regularly has to fight off well-financed challengers. But the centerpiece of Villegas' campaign is that he is refusing to accept money from corporate political action committees, or PACs, which means he'll likely have less money for glossy TV and radio ads, canvassing and all the other expenses that come with political campaigns. But that willingness to stand up to entrenched interests in the name of meaningful change was what could reinvigorate the Democratic base in the wake of the drudging the party took in the 2024 election. 'We know that it's not good enough to say that we're not Trump, or that we're not Valadao. We need to offer something more to our country, to our community,' Villegas said with a crowd of more than 30 people behind him. 'I think we need to start by getting rid of corporate PAC contributions in the Democratic Party,' Villegas said. 'I think we need to be willing to say that we are working for working-class people, and we can't claim to do that if we're taking the same money that Republicans are.' Villegas said Democrats should advocate for policies that reign in profiteering by corporations, which he called corporate greed. 'I think any politician who accepts money from these corporations that say that they need to raise prices while they're reaching record-breaking profits, including the oil industry, is selling us out,' Villegas said. 'Corporations shouldn't be claiming to be struggling when they're seeing record-breaking profits, and then still engaging in corporate greed and passing those costs onto our consumers.' Along with the endorsement of the Working Families Party, Villegas announced his campaign had raised $230,000 since April, evidence, he said, of significant grassroots support. 'The folks that we advocate for and the folks that we want to push for aren't just regular Democrats. They're ones that are going to be accountable to working families,' said Neel Sannappa, an organizer with Working Families Party. That was a message that will motivate people, Sannappa said. He pointed to the April visit from progressive duo Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which filled the Dignity Health Theater to capacity on a Tuesday. 'There's a reason that Democrats like that can do that, and there's a reason that Democrats that take corporate money aren't able to do that,' Sannappa said. In a statement, Republican National Congressional Committee spokesman Christian Martinez said Valadao voted to protect Medicaid for its intended recipients; children, pregnant women, the disabled and the elderly. 'Radical Randy Villegas is bankrolled by socialist extremists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,' Martinez said in a text message. 'He's proudly endorsed their far-left agenda that destroyed California's economy and puts California families last.' Last week, Assemblywoman Dr. Jasmeet Bains, D-Delano, officially jumped into the race and quickly racked up her own set of endorsements. Bains announced endorsements from nine Congressional Democrats and the Service Employees International Union and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Former Assemblyman Rudy Salas —who challenged Valadao in 2022 and 2024 — filed paperwork to run in 2026 but has not committed to doing so. According to filings with the Federal Elections Commission, former Congressional candidate Eric Garcia, a Democrat, has also filed paperwork to run. Valadao has largely been able to defend his seat, even in a district with more registered Democrats than Republicans, but 2026 will be a difficult year, said Christian Grose, a political science professor at the University of Southern California. Moderates who may have voted for Valadao in the past might be put off by his vote for House Resolution 1, formerly known as the Big Beautiful Bill Act, which enacted steep cuts to programs relied on locally, namely Medicaid. 'I think that vote is going to cause some voters to move away just because the district is so dependent on Medicaid,' Grose told The Californian. Valadao's district has the highest percentage of Medicaid enrollment in the state, 67%, and reductions to the program were cited specifically by Bains, a physician, upon her entrance to the race. Grose said voters in the district might not be motivated by Villegas' pledge not to accept corporate donations but will respond to attacks on the social safety net. 'The corporate money, I don't think that resonates much. It is more about bread-and-butter economic issues,' Grose said. 'I do think the more progressive argument, the lack of the social safety net, that can be pretty powerful in that district.' 'Corporate PAC money doesn't really matter to voters in that district,' he said. 'the social safety net does matter.' Grose also noted that Villegas not accepting corporate money won't stop those PACs from spending on the race, either for or against him. 'If purposely you're trying to raise less money, it's going to make it harder,' Grose said. 'Valadao will be spending money.' Despite the blowback from the vote on HR1, Grose believes Valadao will survive the state's top-two primary system to be one of the candidates in the general election. That just leaves the other candidate, and in the 22nd District, Grose said he thinks a more moderate stance is the winning option. 'More moderate is more competitive; the district is more 'small c' conservative,' Grose said. 'Democrats there are different from the rest of the state.'
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
WPLN launches fundraising drive following federal funding cut
The congressional decision last week to strip federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting blew a $400,000 hole in the operating budget for WPLN, Nashville's public radio station. Why it matters: WPLN, widely regarded as a leader in local news, faces a precarious financial situation on the heels of several years of steady growth. The latest: Listeners are stepping up to fill the funding gap. WPLN embarked on an immediate fundraising drive in the aftermath of last week's move by Congress. Mack Linebaugh, WPLN's vice president for audience and content, tells Axios the station is 35% of the way to its goal of filling the budget gap. "We're hearing from people who've never given before," he says. "We're definitely feeling the love." Zoom in: Combined with its sister music station WNXP, WPLN boasts a staff of about 45 people, WPLN's vice president Linebaugh says. The station enjoyed growth, especially over the last six years, adding shows like "This Is Nashville." Linebaugh says the immediate funding gap is clear, but unknown remains, such as the cost of music licensing, which has been paid by the CPB. Although the lost federal funding represents just 1% of the national NPR budget, the impact is much greater on local stations. The CPB passes the money to local NPR and PBS affiliates like WPLN For instance, the approximately $400,000 in lost federal funding amounts to about 5% of the WPLN budget. For smaller stations in rural areas, the percentage of federal funding is higher. "Local stations will really bear the brunt of this," Linebaugh says. Flashback: All of Tennessee's congressional delegation voted in favor of rescinding the federal funding except U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis, the state's lone Democrat representative. Linebaugh says he joined other public radio executives on a trip to Washington, D.C., this year to advocate for maintaining federal funding support. Sen. Marsha Blackburn proposed legislation earlier this year that would have cut federal funding to national NPR and PBS, but not directly slashed grants to local affiliates like WPLN. By the numbers: Tennessee's public radio and television outlets received CPB grants totaling nearly $6.9 million in 2023, according to CPB documents.
Scientific American
2 hours ago
- Scientific American
Science Agency Staffers Speak Out about Trump Administration's Actions
The federal government is full of scientists who lend their expertise to key decisions about our food, medicines, environment, health care, and more. But as the first six months of President Donald Trump's second term have unfolded, these scientists say they have found themselves as pawns in what they call a strongly antiscience administration. Some are speaking out publicly. Several hundred staffers at the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA have banded together to write to their leaders and other government officials. The resulting letters, published by the nonprofit organization Stand Up for Science, decry deep cuts at the agencies and changing priorities that belie their traditional missions and go far beyond the shifts that typically occur under new presidents. (A fourth letter, made public late July 22 by the New York Times, was written by National Science Foundation staffers to Representative Zoe Lofgren, senior Democrat on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, calls on the committee to defend NSF citing similar complaints.) 'As an administrator, you carry out the policy of the president; that's always been so, and that is [so] today,' says Christine Todd Whitman, who served as administrator of the EPA under then president George W. Bush. 'But the policy has never been the dismantling of the agency.' Now, she and the letters' authors fear, it is. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The EPA staffers' letter, which they call a 'Declaration of Dissent,' highlights five key concerns about how Administrator Lee Zeldin has been running the agency. Officials are 'undermining public trust..., ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters..., reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities..., dismantling the Office of Research and Development [and] promoting a culture of fear,' the staffers write. The second point— ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters —is a particular concern for Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist who worked at the EPA's Environmental Justice Office until she and the rest of that office were placed on leave in February. 'The EPA was founded with a mission to protect human health and the environment, regardless of its effect on industry,' she says. The EPA works with companies to ensure its policies are reasonable, she notes, and companies receive broader support from other government agencies. Hertzberg also highlights the administration's circumvention of established protocols for reducing staffing. 'If you want to have a reduction in force, that's fine,' she says. 'Let's do it legally; let's do it according to procedure.' Another signer of the EPA letter is Michael Pasqua, a life scientist and program manager for the EPA's safe drinking water efforts in Wisconsin. He says he has been particularly upset by changes at the agency's Office of Research and Development, which is being slashed to one third of its staff and folded into the administrator's office. 'This is the science that everything is based off of,' Pasqua says of the Office of Research and Development's work. Now, he fears, researchers will be pressured into arriving at findings that match the administrator's priorities. 'They are turning science into this subjective cultural conversation that doesn't really make any sense,' he says. Pasqua says he just wants to be able to focus on his work: supporting Wisconsin's effort to ensure residents have access to safe, clean drinking water. The state, he says, is still facing challenges from its historically heavy use of nitrate chemicals in agriculture, even as it has been among the first to quantify and begin addressing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFAS, or 'forever chemicals,' in drinking water. 'I thought I would be helping people,' he says of his decision to join the EPA. The EPA did not return Scientific American 's request for comment on the letter. After the letter was published, the agency put about 140 employees who signed it on administrative leave. 'It was an act of courage to develop and sign on to this letter, knowing that signatories would likely be sidelined or even worse,' said Gina McCarthy, who served as administrator of the EPA under then president Barack Obama, in a statement to Scientific American. The most recent of the three letters was sent to NASA's interim administrator Sean Duffy. Its signers are particularly afraid of retaliation, says one current employee, who signed the letter but asked to remain anonymous in this article. This NASA employee has been worried for a while. 'I'm someone who has been pretty heavily involved with diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility groups around NASA, so once the executive orders getting rid of those were issued and then very quickly implemented, that's when I knew that the destruction was coming our way,' they say. Although all three agencies are facing dramatic changes, the details look different, and each letter speaks to those individual circumstances. The NASA letter, for example, is heavily shaped by the way human spaceflight disasters, such as the Challenger and Columbia tragedies, have become baked into the agency's culture—the letter calls out by name astronauts who have died in the line of duty. NASA staffers also highlight, in particular, the move by the Trump administration to cancel more than a dozen healthy spacecraft that have been conducting extended operations—old missions that now require a minuscule budget but still return valuable science data. 'Once we hit the off switch, there's no on switch,' the NASA employee says of the proposed mission cancellations, noting that some spacecraft are designed to be destroyed at the end of their life. 'There's just no coming back from that.' (NASA also did not return Scientific American 's request for comment on the letter.) The NIH employees' letter, dubbed the 'Bethesda Declaration,' was published first, in early June, and has seen perhaps the most open reception. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya met with 38 staffers who signed on to the letter on July 21. 'I felt there was a lot of empathy, there was some engaged discussion. I didn't really hear a strong plan for change,' one attendee said during a rally following the meeting. 'We're going in the wrong direction, and there has been irreparable harm done. But there's still time to right the ship.' —Ian Morgan, molecular biologist and postdoctoral fellow, NIH Before the meeting, Bhattacharya had hinted at openness to discussion within the agency. 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration,' he said in a statement provided to Scientific American. 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' Like the other letters, the Bethesda Declaration highlights key concerns about the agency's activities under the second Trump administration. In it, employees complain that the NIH has been forced to 'politicize research by halting high-quality, peer-reviewed grants and contracts..., interrupt global collaboration..., undermine peer review..., enact a blanket 15% cap on indirect costs,' which hinders funded research, and 'fire essential NIH staff.' Ian Morgan, a molecular biologist and postdoctoral fellow at the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, who studies antimicrobial resistance, says that the months since Trump took office have been difficult. 'Everything was shut down,' he says. 'We weren't allowed to communicate outside with our collaborators; we weren't allowed to order any supplies to do our work; we weren't able to do any new research.' Morgan, who has worked for the NIH on and off for more than a decade, was able to reprioritize his work to focus on writing up existing findings. Still, he says, he was struck by the havoc wreaked on the research conducted within the agency and upset by reports from clinic staff who had to let patients know they would no longer be able to receive treatment at NIH facilities. 'We're going in the wrong direction, and there has been irreparable harm done,' Morgan says of changes made in the past months that drove him to sign the letter. 'But there's still time to right the ship.' In a statement to Scientific American, an NIH spokesperson responded to each concern included in the letter, saying that the agency's 'funding decisions must be based on the merit of provable and testable hypotheses, not ideological narratives.' In addition, the statement said that 'legitimate international collaborations' have not been stopped—that the agency is merely trying to understand where money is going—and that the concerns about peer review are a 'misunderstanding' as the agency focuses on 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The statement also pointed to other funders that cap overhead costs at 15 percent and said that the agency is 'reviewing each case of termination to ensure appropriateness,' reversing these decisions as it sees fit. 'Still, as NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing model to ensure alignment with our central mission and being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.' Morgan, Hertzberg and Pasqua all say their fundamental goal in speaking out is to ensure they can continue doing what they believe is important work that benefits people across the U.S. 'I hope the general public understands that what we're doing, we're doing for them,' Pasqua says. 'If you drink water and you breathe air, we're trying to protect you.'
