Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After reading up on this-as usual the OPs title is a lie.... Nothing in the changes in regulations "kills" the ESA-it simply brings some common sense to the law-and avoids some of the abuses of those using the act to punish landowners and the public. More importantly, it looks at the financial impact of ESA designation-something LONG overdue.
These losses are for the protection of species, been around 50 years and it works.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 8 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,160 posts, read 13,444,010 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Yes that seems so. I find in confusing that they also believe Trump comes up with this personally because he is just callous and unsympathetic and hates everything.
I guess no one is old enough to remember the endangered snail darter controversy.
I think the people who generally call Trump callous and unsympasthetic to the plight of the world are called scientists and environmentalists.
The weakening of the legislation will allow economic factors to be put ahead of conservation or preservation of endangered species or areas of special scientific interest.
Then again Donald has a track record in this area.
The US federal government has announced an overhaul of the way it enforces the Endangered Species Act, a law credited with preventing countless extinctions.
Trump officials say the new plan will reduce regulations, but environmental groups warn it will "crash a bulldozer" through the landmark 1973 legislation.
The plan removes automatic protections for threatened species and allows economic factors to be considered.
Critics say the new rules will speed extinction for vulnerable wildlife.
Ten state attorneys general have announced plans to sue over the new regulation.
I think the people who generally call Trump callous and unsympasthetic to the plight of the world are called scientists and environmentalists.
The weakening of the legislation will allow economic factors to be put ahead of conservation or preservation of endangered species or areas of special scientific interest.
You might think wrong. I have my degree in wildlife and fisheries science and work for an environmental consulting company. Of course I dont know what field you and Mollygee are in.
What do you think of the case of TVA vs. Hill concerning the endangered snail darter? Legislation all the way to the supreme court trying to make an exemption to the endangered species act.
Tell me how you believe defining endangered and threatened classifications separately as opposed to treating threatened as endangered species and basing determinations on actual present ranges as opposed to historical ranges weakens the endangered species act and threatens the protection of endangered species.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 8 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,160 posts, read 13,444,010 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
You might think wrong. I have my degree in wildlife and fisheries science and work for an environmental consulting company. Of course I dont know what field you and Mollygee are in.
What do you think of the case of TVA vs. Hill concerning the endangered snail darter? Legislation all the way to the supreme court trying to make an exemption to the endangered species act.
Tell me how you believe defining endangered and threatened classifications separately as opposed to treating threatened as endangered species and basing determinations on actual present ranges as opposed to historical ranges weakens the endangered species act and threatens the protection of endangered species.
There was nothing wrong with protecting the snail darter, indeed there all kinds of protected wildlife and animals in lmost countries and those deemed endangered or threatened,are on those lists for a good reason.
The preservation of animals deemed endangered or threatened by scientists must come before pure greed and economics, even if it means companies having to build new wildlife habitats and move endangered or threatened species.
Pyron’s argument is simple: extinction has been going on ever since the beginning of life, 99% or more of species that ever existed have gone extinct without leaving descendants, and even more have evolved into something very different; there have been lots of “natural” extinctions due to changes in earth’s climate, snowpack, and continental drift; the Earth always recovers from extinctions to produce a new crop of species; it will likewise recover from the latest anthropogenic “Sixth Extinction”; and even if the endangered species—or other species—go extinct, we’ll get some nifty new ones. The only species worth caring about, says Pyron, are those whose welfare impacts our own, like trees, food fish, and so on. And this is from a biologist.
It's fairy irresponsible to relax laws in relation to endangered species,
The problem once on this list removing them is impossibly hard even if the population has recovered. It's being used as back door measure for environmental regulations, e.g. instead of banning the gun you ban lead which is actually something "environmental" groups tried whose members just happened to be anti-gun.
There is extremes on both sides, you have some capitalists that could care less and on the other side you have environmentalists that would ban everything. Neither should be acceptable, sane and practical regulations the meets the needs of everyone is what is required.
There was nothing wrong with protecting the snail darter, indeed there all kinds of protected wildlife and animals in lmost countries and those deemed endangered or threatened,are on those lists for a good reason.
The preservation of animals deemed endangered or threatened by scientists must come before pure greed and economics, even if it means companies having to build new wildlife habitats and move endangered or threatened species.
Apparently you are not familiar with the snail darter case. It was exactly what you are pretending this change in definitions is doing.
How are the proposed changes eliminating the preservation of endangered and threatened species?
After reading up on this-as usual the OPs title is a lie.... Nothing in the changes in regulations "kills" the ESA-it simply brings some common sense to the law-and avoids some of the abuses of those using the act to punish landowners and the public. More importantly, it looks at the financial impact of ESA designation-something LONG overdue.
So now, all of the sudden, you trust the government to make "common sense" decisions on a case by case basis? Seems to me like there is a bit of contradiction in the positions of the Trump Base. They don't trust anything or anyone in the government who disagrees with him, and they do trust anyone for any reason if they do agree. So far, the only justifcation they have given for years is "Trump said it, so it must be true".
Unbelievable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
