Endangered Species Act
Re: Endangered Species Act
What, did Stephen Miller talk Trump into labeling straight white male Christians "endangered"?
-
Deleted User 276
-
Deleted User 276
Re: Endangered Species Act
Below are quotes from people on both sides in case anyone is actually interested in what the changes are rather than just seeing a headline and doing the usual circle jerk meltdown without even know what you're mad about....
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and other administration officials contend the changes improve efficiency of oversight, while protecting rare species.
"The best way to uphold the Endangered Species Act is to do everything we can to ensure it remains effective in achieving its ultimate goal — recovery of our rarest species," Bernhardt said. "An effectively administered Act ensures more resources can go where they will do the most good: on-the-ground conservation."
The Endangered Species Act is credited with helping save the bald eagle, California condor and scores of other animals and plants from extinction since President Richard Nixon signed it into law in 1973. The Endangered Species Act currently protects more than 1,600 species in the United States and its territories. Republicans have long sought to overhaul the law.
Gary Frazer, an assistant director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told reporters that the government would adhere to the law by disclosing the costs to the public, without being a factor for the officials considering the protections.
"Nothing in here in my view is a radical change for how we have been consulting and listing species for the last decade or so," Frazer said. Instead, he said, it brings "more transparency and certainty to the public about the way we'll carry out our job."
Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and Wildlife, said the administration is simply trying to make the process more efficient.
"The Endangered Species Act exists to identify struggling species and help them recover. Unfortunately, current implementation is drawn out and ineffective," Cramer said in a statement. "Today's actions will help achieve actual species recovery while providing much-needed clarity and stability to those who are too often held hostage by the ESA. I applaud Secretary Bernhardt and the Trump Administration for their continued work to make the federal government more efficient and effective, and I look forward to continue working with them to modernize the Fish and Wildlife Service."
But Democratic lawmakers, several state attorneys generals and conservation groups said the overhaul would hamper protections for endangered and threatened species.
David Hayes, the executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU School of Law and a former interior deputy secretary under the Obama and Clinton administrations, called the rollback "dangerous."
"The Trump administration's decision to finalize these dangerous rollbacks comes at a time when threatened and endangered species are facing increasing pressure from global forces like climate change, drought, desertification, deforestation, ocean acidification and the rapid destruction of critical habitats," Hayes said. "Instead of looking for solutions to the global extinction crisis that threatens up to one million plant and animal species, this administration has decided to place arbitrary and unlawful restrictions on the very federal regulators that Congress has tasked with protecting them."
Jennifer Rokala, the executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, had even sharper criticisms.
"Bernhardt's record as Interior Secretary is shameful. At a time when wildlife are facing increasing threats from oil and gas development and climate change, he is gutting bedrock wildlife protections and rolling back public health safeguards on drilling. This is what you get when an oil lobbyist is in charge of our public lands," Rokala said.
At least 10 attorneys general joined conservation groups in protesting an early draft of the changes, saying they put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction. Conservationists have also promised legal action.
"This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it's a gift to industry, and it's illegal. We'll see the Trump administration in court about it," Drew Caputo, a vice president of litigation for the conservation advocacy group Earthjustice.
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and other administration officials contend the changes improve efficiency of oversight, while protecting rare species.
"The best way to uphold the Endangered Species Act is to do everything we can to ensure it remains effective in achieving its ultimate goal — recovery of our rarest species," Bernhardt said. "An effectively administered Act ensures more resources can go where they will do the most good: on-the-ground conservation."
The Endangered Species Act is credited with helping save the bald eagle, California condor and scores of other animals and plants from extinction since President Richard Nixon signed it into law in 1973. The Endangered Species Act currently protects more than 1,600 species in the United States and its territories. Republicans have long sought to overhaul the law.
Gary Frazer, an assistant director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told reporters that the government would adhere to the law by disclosing the costs to the public, without being a factor for the officials considering the protections.
"Nothing in here in my view is a radical change for how we have been consulting and listing species for the last decade or so," Frazer said. Instead, he said, it brings "more transparency and certainty to the public about the way we'll carry out our job."
Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and Wildlife, said the administration is simply trying to make the process more efficient.
"The Endangered Species Act exists to identify struggling species and help them recover. Unfortunately, current implementation is drawn out and ineffective," Cramer said in a statement. "Today's actions will help achieve actual species recovery while providing much-needed clarity and stability to those who are too often held hostage by the ESA. I applaud Secretary Bernhardt and the Trump Administration for their continued work to make the federal government more efficient and effective, and I look forward to continue working with them to modernize the Fish and Wildlife Service."
But Democratic lawmakers, several state attorneys generals and conservation groups said the overhaul would hamper protections for endangered and threatened species.
David Hayes, the executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU School of Law and a former interior deputy secretary under the Obama and Clinton administrations, called the rollback "dangerous."
"The Trump administration's decision to finalize these dangerous rollbacks comes at a time when threatened and endangered species are facing increasing pressure from global forces like climate change, drought, desertification, deforestation, ocean acidification and the rapid destruction of critical habitats," Hayes said. "Instead of looking for solutions to the global extinction crisis that threatens up to one million plant and animal species, this administration has decided to place arbitrary and unlawful restrictions on the very federal regulators that Congress has tasked with protecting them."
Jennifer Rokala, the executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, had even sharper criticisms.
"Bernhardt's record as Interior Secretary is shameful. At a time when wildlife are facing increasing threats from oil and gas development and climate change, he is gutting bedrock wildlife protections and rolling back public health safeguards on drilling. This is what you get when an oil lobbyist is in charge of our public lands," Rokala said.
At least 10 attorneys general joined conservation groups in protesting an early draft of the changes, saying they put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction. Conservationists have also promised legal action.
"This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it's a gift to industry, and it's illegal. We'll see the Trump administration in court about it," Drew Caputo, a vice president of litigation for the conservation advocacy group Earthjustice.
-
Deleted User 276
Re: Endangered Species Act
Sounds like many changes are about money, how/where it's allocated, transparency about costs, etc.
With all the money we burn on dumb shit, you'd think/hope the environment (animals included) would be something we spend as much as needed to preserve.
With all the money we burn on dumb shit, you'd think/hope the environment (animals included) would be something we spend as much as needed to preserve.
Re: Endangered Species Act
You are trusting that an administration that has managed to blow the deficit out of the water in middle of a strong economy is doing this to be good fiscal stewards?
Re: Endangered Species Act
Murder laws could also be streamlined so that investigations will only be undertaken when an actual victim has died. After all, it is the Murder Law....not Attempted Murder Law. This will save a lot of time for the police who are currently spending time investigating incident where no actual murder took place. "We can spend the money more effectively and wisely when only actual murders occurred" said Sherriff Dadgum. It will also free up the courts and lawyers' time said the Deputy District Attorney. "Think of all the time we could save if the Judges don't have to decide between attempted murder, accidental assault, and other such trivialities", she added. "Once a victim is admitted to the hospital we now don't have to keep following up on the case" said the head of the Detectives Unit. "If the victim dies three or four days later it doesn't matter anymore" he stated.
Re: Endangered Species Act
This isn't exactly what I would call a Green administration.
Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-
Deleted User 276
-
Deleted User 89
Re: Endangered Species Act
now the economic impact of protection is going to be part of the equation for determining which species get protection, which was previously illegal
first substantive changes in 45 years
complete lack of understanding about the impact a given species has in its ecosystem and local food web, but rather (surprise, surprise) what the economic impact of protecting that species will be. nothing to see here but shortsightedness and greed.
why?
first substantive changes in 45 years
complete lack of understanding about the impact a given species has in its ecosystem and local food web, but rather (surprise, surprise) what the economic impact of protecting that species will be. nothing to see here but shortsightedness and greed.
why?
Re: Endangered Species Act
Unfortunately, for decades, "conservative" republicans have tried to subject everything they can, except their spending and tax cuts, to a "co$t/benefit" analysis. And now they have their transactional messiah, #donnydimwit, to lead the charge.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:09 am now the economic impact of protection is going to be part of the equation for determining which species get protection, which was previously illegal
first substantive changes in 45 years
complete lack of understanding about the impact a given species has in its ecosystem and local food web, but rather (surprise, surprise) what the economic impact of protecting that species will be. nothing to see here but shortsightedness and greed.
why?
“The Electoral College is DEI for rural white folks.”
Derek Cressman
Derek Cressman
Re: Endangered Species Act
The GOP platform only cares about fiscal responsibility when it involves things they dont give a shit about. The environment, social services programs, education, etc...TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:09 am now the economic impact of protection is going to be part of the equation for determining which species get protection, which was previously illegal
first substantive changes in 45 years
complete lack of understanding about the impact a given species has in its ecosystem and local food web, but rather (surprise, surprise) what the economic impact of protecting that species will be. nothing to see here but shortsightedness and greed.
why?
-
Deleted User 276
Re: Endangered Species Act
Gary Frazer, an assistant director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told reporters that the government would adhere to the law by disclosing the costs to the public, without being a factor for the officials considering the protections.
"Nothing in here in my view is a radical change for how we have been consulting and listing species for the last decade or so," Frazer said. Instead, he said, it brings "more transparency and certainty to the public about the way we'll carry out our job."
....so what am I missing or is he lying?
"Nothing in here in my view is a radical change for how we have been consulting and listing species for the last decade or so," Frazer said. Instead, he said, it brings "more transparency and certainty to the public about the way we'll carry out our job."
....so what am I missing or is he lying?
Re: Endangered Species Act
Did you not read this part:
"Bernhardt's record as Interior Secretary is shameful. At a time when wildlife are facing increasing threats from oil and gas development and climate change, he is gutting bedrock wildlife protections and rolling back public health safeguards on drilling. This is what you get when an oil lobbyist is in charge of our public lands," Rokala said.
At least 10 attorneys general joined conservation groups in protesting an early draft of the changes, saying they put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction. Conservationists have also promised legal action.
"This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it's a gift to industry, and it's illegal. We'll see the Trump administration in court about it," Drew Caputo, a vice president of litigation for the conservation advocacy group Earthjustice.
Trust this or not trust this?
"Bernhardt's record as Interior Secretary is shameful. At a time when wildlife are facing increasing threats from oil and gas development and climate change, he is gutting bedrock wildlife protections and rolling back public health safeguards on drilling. This is what you get when an oil lobbyist is in charge of our public lands," Rokala said.
At least 10 attorneys general joined conservation groups in protesting an early draft of the changes, saying they put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction. Conservationists have also promised legal action.
"This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it's a gift to industry, and it's illegal. We'll see the Trump administration in court about it," Drew Caputo, a vice president of litigation for the conservation advocacy group Earthjustice.
Trust this or not trust this?
Re: Endangered Species Act
Aren't these the same guys who are turning over federally protected lands for oil, gas, and coal extraction? Why would we trust them when it comes to endangered species?
Defense. Rebounds.
-
Deleted User 89
Re: Endangered Species Act
why would anyone trust the word/s of scientists over those of a career oil-man?
-
Deleted User 89
Re: Endangered Species Act
did some primitive camping this past weekend, and when i told my folks about the trip my dad replied “better camp while you can before trump gives all the land away”
-
Deleted User 276