Bush to relax protected species rules

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by solvs, Aug 14, 2008.

  1. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #1
    AP IMPACT: Bush to relax protected species rules
    But don't worry, Jesus has already saved us:

    Jesus is Just All Right With Me
    The lunatics are truly running the asylum.
     
  2. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
  3. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #3
    Sweet mother of Mister T.
     
  4. scotthayes macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #4
    January 20th 2009 can not come soon enough... Now just got to pray you don't get bush mk. II
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    "...federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants."

    If the personnel of the agencies are incompetent to make these decisions, who in Congress is better educated and trained in the arenas of technical expertise?

    One long-standing problem is that many specious claims of endangerment have been brought against various projects. This action by Bush is in large part a response to a long-time history of the small boy crying, "Wolf!"
     
  6. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    First off, it's not Congress that's making the decisions, it's independent scientists...as in people with actual expertise. Secondly, the agencies are themselves biased and partisan (either left or right, doesn't matter). That's the whole point of independent review -- strip away any politics and look at those silly things called FACTS.
     
  7. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #8
    I believe facts, especially thosed grounded in established science, are highly over-rated. I much prefer decisions be based upon ephemeral emotions and easy slogans.
     
  8. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #9
    [​IMG]
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Another long-standing problem is that many greedy corporatists have simply ignored endangerment issues in their zeal to develop with no environmental restrictions.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Umm...really? Would you care to prove that assertion?
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    Nonetheless, the ability to have two agencies (FWS and NOAA) able to independently review violations of the ESW or to make assessments on other government projects, seems like a necessary check and balance. Removing this kind of review and giving to each individual agency is going to add needless complexity and will most likely result in a complete lack of oversight.

    Remember the story of the Boy, he gets eaten. We don't want that.
     
  12. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #13
    How sad...

    Just goes to show how important November 4th really is. I'm not sure about McCain's standpoint, but Palin (read -> the governor of the only state with polar bears) said that putting polar bears on the endangered species list was the wrong thing to do.
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    mac, I don't doubt that there are some corporate execs who try to evade environmental protection laws. But, have you ever worked with any corporate execs? I have. One thing that still stands out was a comment from a VP with Reynolds Aluminum, approximately: "Set out the rules. We can adapt and live with them. But don't change them on us. Don't put us in the position of a field goal kicker, who, when he goes to kick the ball, you move the goal posts." From what I saw, up close and personal, that's common throughout industry.

    Cry wolf? How about the USF&WS employee's claim about lynx being found in an area where they'd not been known, before? And as it turned out, was a fraudulent claim. Same sort of hoo-hah over other species. E.g., the Aguja Springs wort in the Davis Mountains. There was a call to outlaw cattle from proximity to the springs or the outflow stream--except that the wort and cattle had been coexisting for some hundred years. Similar wrongful notions about fish habitat and cattle along western streams.

    As far as the polar bears, they're in no way endangered. The North American population has grown by a large percentage. And, it's grown in Canada, where hunting is allowed, as well as in Alaska where hunting is not allowed.

    The recent rules change, disallowing the bringing back of trophy pelts to the U.S. from Canada, will most likely lead to an increased kill. Canada presently licenses the northern Indians to take bears. They've been able to sell the permits for some $1,500 to U.S. hunters--who are not always successful. Now, no more hunters from the U.S., so the Indians will use the permits themselves. With less cash from hunters, they need the meat and can possibly sell the hides to Europeans. They usually have a 100% success rate. Ergo, greater kill rate.

    Palin's comment was based on knowledge, not emotion.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    By breaking this system up, flawed though it may be, to different agencies still strikes me as a bad idea.

    As far as the polar bears, they're in no way endangered. The North American population has grown by a large percentage. And, it's grown in Canada, where hunting is allowed, as well as in Alaska where hunting is not allowed.

    I can't comment on Palin's knowledge, but according to the IUCN there are 19 recognized bear subpopulations: five are declining, five are stable, two are increasing, and seven are currently uncounted or have insufficient data for a population study. The melting of sea ice seems like a greater threat to polar bear populations. Hudson Bay populations, as just one example, are declining 22% since the early 1980s.
    However, some native communities have reported increasing numbers of Polar Bears on land, indicating that the species may be transitioning from living on sea ice to living on land.

    Of course, it's worth noting that Alaska's suit correlates with an suit brought by the American Petroleum Institute and five other industry groups (the US Chamber of Commerce, National Mining Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers) trying to remove the Polar Bear from the ESA. It appears that the industry groups are afraid that a new ESA policy that includes the Polar Bear would preclude the exploration of oil and gas in Alaska.

    So, it's worth recognizing that Alaska's suit may be less about protecting the bear than protecting oil and gas interests in the state.
     
  15. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    "So, it's worth recognizing that Alaska's suit may be less about protecting the bear than protecting oil and gas interests in the state."

    Sure. There's no shortage of polar bears, and the money from oil/gas provides food money for thousands of Alaskans.

    I have no problem with environmental protection, stipulating that it's based on real science and includes common sense. I've been around beaucoup oil facilities, including family land as well as others' wells, storage tanks and in refineries. I like to think I learned a little about what goes on.

    As a minor for instance, fifty years ago it was common to bulldoze a "mudpit" as a reservoir for the drilling mud used in the well. When the well was completed, the mud pit might or might not get filled in, but the contaminated mud was left in place. Now, semi-trailer steel tanks are used and it's all hauled away after the well is completed. This is just one of many improvements in protecting local ecosystems.

    'Rat
     
  16. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
  17. Lixivial macrumors 6502a

    Lixivial

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    Between cats, dogs and wanderlust.
    #18
    Yeah, well, at least we (Minnesotans) no longer have people telling us that Jesse Ventura was the most embarrassing politico to come out of our state. Michele Bachmann continues to redefine the definition of insanity with every passing day.

    After her repeated bigoted fiascos in our state legislature, it's quite telling of her district's naivete that they allowed her to move on to the US Congress. To see a quote such as this, after quotes regarding an "Iraq state of Islam or something like that," is pretty much on course. Shocking, appalling and embarrassing.
     

Share This Page