Still waiting for the other 49. Well, Gov. Mother of the Year in Alaska probably won't file so let's say 48.

The ESA should be repealed.

ZAZ: The ESA should be repealed.

Does it it interfere with your local strip mall development or forest denuding?

God knows big business has a horrible track record with anything environmental.

ZAZ: The ESA should be repealed.

Elaborate.

40yoVirgin: God knows big business has a horrible track record with anything environmental.

But but... invisible hand... free market... nothing bad could ever come from unbridled and unregulated greed!

Does it it interfere with your local strip mall development or forest denuding?

You fell for the propaganda. The ESA has nothing to do with being friendly to the environment. That's NEPA (if I recall my acronyms correctly). The ESA is primarily about expensive, disruptive, ineffective attempts to save animals of minimal ecological significance.

The state version of the ESA where I live was used against strip malls and every other sort of development known to man. Anti-development groups got a common species listed as endangered. Being common, it could be found in the path of many projects which people wanted stopped for other reasons. After many years of this nonsense state officials, in a rare show of sense, collected all the reports where it was found in the path of development and ruled that the species was not endangered.

If you want to cut off a mountaintop in West Virginia and fill the adjacent valley with toxic sludge, the ESA says you have to make sure the particular subspecies of flying squirrel you will be killing is not one on the government's list of nice animals. You have two species of flying squirrel there, both of them common through much of North America and in no danger of extinction. But scientists have designated one group of one species as endangered. Remember the hoax a few years back about redheads going extinct? Also talking about a subpopulation, except distinctions between flying squirrel subspecies are more subtle. (Even the full species, Northern and Southern, are very similar.)

ZAZ: You fell for the propaganda. The ESA has nothing to do with being friendly to the environment. That's NEPA (if I recall my acronyms correctly).

ESA is an integral part of NEPA...

NEPA requires a "hard look" at all scientifically supported aspects of a project, including ESA. Many ESA species are indicators that provide a look at the health of the ecosystem.

I'm not going to say its a perfect system, but until someone develops a better protocol, I say keep it in place.

/scientist with USFS

Good for CA! Go home state go!

Oh, go hug a tree.

Many ESA species are indicators that provide a look at the health of the ecosystem.

The indicator species I have read about are common, e.g. Chironomidae (midge) larvae are used to measure water quality. I think only one fly is classified as endangered and it's not in that family.

Most listed species are not being used as indicators because the government isn't tracking them at all. We had a thread about this issue a couple years ago. The law says the government has to review status to keep species listed. In reality the government doesn't know what's happened since the species was listed and is illegally relying on outdated studies.

ZAZ: You fell for the propaganda. The ESA has nothing to do with being friendly to the environment. That's NEPA (if I recall my acronyms correctly). The ESA is primarily about expensive, disruptive, ineffective attempts to save animals of minimal ecological significance.

ESA's should not be revoked because it is needed to protect apex predators in biomes through out the US. When apex predators are endangered, herbivore populations can start to grow out of control. As an example one need only look at the problem of suburban deer populations in the South East. Their primary predator was the eastern population of the North American Cougar and the Red Wolf, both species are endangered because they were hunted to near extinction by ranchers.

Because of the depressed population of their primary predator white tail deer populations along the east coast (and especially in the South East) have exploded. Parallel to the increase in the white tail deer population has been an increase in serious car accidents involving deer, and the jump of lyme disease into human populations. Also herbivore over population has a deleterious impact on plant diversity of a biome, as invasive species that are not consumed by the native herbivores are able to encroach on habitats that are harmed by the overpopulated herbivores.

Development that reduces predatory ranging habitats benefits herbivores and turning those herbivore species into nuisances. Controlling development to preserve predatory ranges keeps herbivore populations in check and improves the over all health of the biome.

Claiming that ESA is some how anti-capitalist is just an excuse to allow for unfettered land development.

FTA:

The federal rules, made final on Dec. 16, eliminated mandated independent scientific review of federal agency plans if the agency determined the projects pose no threat to protected species. Further, the new rules removed the requirement to consider the effects of greenhouse gases on protected species and their habitat.

One nice thing it would do, on the flip side, is drastically cut down on the time that these decisions take to make. EIR's already take forever to research and get out, and requiring an independent confirmation just adds to the time it takes to make a determination.

ZAZ: The law says the government has to review status to keep species listed. In reality the government doesn't know what's happened since the species was listed and is illegally relying on outdated studies.

This I can confirm as being true. I've seen EIRs that rely on very outdated studies (probably cause its impossible to have massive, large scale expensive studies done every year or two).

TheDumbBlonde: Oh, go hug a tree.

THIS!

I guess California had to get some extra money somehow, otherwise they'd go broke.

Code_Archeologist: ZAZ: You fell for the propaganda. The ESA has nothing to do with being friendly to the environment. That's NEPA (if I recall my acronyms correctly). The ESA is primarily about expensive, disruptive, ineffective attempts to save animals of minimal ecological significance.

ESA's should not be revoked because it is needed to protect apex predators in biomes through out the US. When apex predators are endangered, herbivore populations can start to grow out of control. As an example one need only look at the problem of suburban deer populations in the South East. Their primary predator was the eastern population of the North American Cougar and the Red Wolf, both species are endangered because they were hunted to near extinction by ranchers.

Because of the depressed population of their primary predator white tail deer populations along the east coast (and especially in the South East) have exploded. Parallel to the increase in the white tail deer population has been an increase in serious car accidents involving deer, and the jump of lyme disease into human populations. Also herbivore over population has a deleterious impact on plant diversity of a biome, as invasive species that are not consumed by the native herbivores are able to encroach on habitats that are harmed by the overpopulated herbivores.

Development that reduces predatory ranging habitats benefits herbivores and turning those herbivore species into nuisances. Controlling development to preserve predatory ranges keeps herbivore populations in check and improves the over all health of the biome.

Claiming that ESA is some how anti-capitalist is just an excuse to allow for unfettered land development.

STAND BACK, HE HAS A SCIENCE!

/+1

It's great the California Government is worrying about this rather than trying to get out of 20 Billion in debt

Nickers: I guess California had to get some extra money somehow, otherwise they'd go broke.

came to say something snarky like this.

As a resident of California, I say thanks.

/Every now and then we do something right.
//As expensive as it is, I love living here.

pd771: It's great the California Government is worrying about this rather than trying to get out of 20 Billion 42 Billion in debt

FTFM

The federal rules, made final on Dec. 16, eliminated mandated independent scientific review of federal agency plans if the agency determined the projects pose no threat to protected species. Further, the new rules removed the requirement to consider the effects of greenhouse gases on protected species and their habitat.

Critics argued that agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management do not have sufficient scientific expertise to properly evaluate threats to wildlife. And, they said, the rules would make it more difficult to protect animals such as the polar bear, which was placed on the Endangered Species List because of the effects of climate change on the bear's melting habitat.

Probably real reason for the compliant. Anyway, under an Obama administration, what is California's fear ? Also, if true, why doesn't the Bureau of Land Management have sufficient scientific expertise ?

I would like to at least taste all the delicious animals before they go completely extinct.

Especially Manatee....it's a cow of the sea. Its like surf & turf all in one!! THEY'RE PROBABLY DELICIOUS!!

KaponoFor3: One nice thing it would do, on the flip side, is drastically cut down on the time that these decisions take to make. EIR's already take forever to research and get out, and requiring an independent confirmation just adds to the time it takes to make a determination.

To do that we would need to increase the funding for the Department of the Interior. They are usually the ones that pay for the studies, the rangers, and collect the data that the EIR's depend on for their creation. But that department's budget has been cut significantly (when adjusted for inflation). If the department's programs were fully funded EIR's could be generated in a more timely manner with more accurate data.

Maybe Maryland will be next.

EPA Called A 'Negative Factor' in Bay Cleanup (new window)

"They have been undercut by the EPA, which has been worse than missing in action," Baker said. "They have been a negative factor. They have not been enforcing the Clean Water Act. They have relaxed restrictions on air pollution, specifically on coal-fired power plants, and they've cut back on funding to states for things like sewage treatment plant improvements, and that's the low-hanging fruit when it comes to pollution."

LyriCa1z: TheDumbBlonde: Oh, go hug a tree.

THIS!

Because it was so witty and original?

pd771: It's great the California Government is worrying about this rather than trying to get out of 20 Billion in debt

The Federal government is 10 trillion and debt and found time to fark up environmental policies to begin with. So go California. I'm glad somebody is fighting the Bush administration on this.

in debt, that is.

pd771: It's great the California Government is worrying about this rather than trying to get out of 20 Billion in debt

True, because the California government can only work on one thing at a time.

/moran

TheDumbBlonde: Oh, go hug a tree.

Your name is quite fitting.

These guys have one word for California about the Endangered Species Act:

keflex: True, because the California government can only work on one thing at a time.

Good point. What kind of role does CA's AG play in budget problems, pd771?

LyriCa1z: TheDumbBlonde: Oh, go hug a tree.

THIS!

It gives me a great feeling. They give so much to us and we give them little in return. TheDumbBlonde has given me faith in Fark.
**hugs**

LargeCanine: These guys have one word for California about the Endangered Species Act:

Isn't the big complaint against Franken running for senate that he's just a comedian and no one should be listening to him? Or is it okay when a comedian agrees with you? I get confused

Link (new window)

Speaking of polar bears like in the article, did you all see the chilling pictures of game of hide and seek with a hungry polar bear. It was a surveyor in Barrow, Alaska trying to avoid being a bear dinner.

I wasn't aware protecting animals was in the Constitution

LargeCanine: These guys have one word for California about the Endangered Species Act:

I know I get all my information from a Las Vegas novelty magic act.

atlanta_ufo: Link (new window)

Speaking of polar bears like in the article, did you all see the chilling pictures of game of hide and seek with a hungry polar bear. It was a surveyor in Barrow, Alaska trying to avoid being a bear dinner.

Did the photographer get eaten?

Shaggy_C: I wasn't aware protecting animals was in the Constitution

Seems to me that it falls under supporting the general welfare.

jcooli09:
Seems to me that it falls under supporting the general welfare.

Oops, promoting.

If these animals can't learn to compete in a free market system, well then I don't have any sympathy for them.

ifarkthereforiam: atlanta_ufo: Link (new window)

Speaking of polar bears like in the article, did you all see the chilling pictures of game of hide and seek with a hungry polar bear. It was a surveyor in Barrow, Alaska trying to avoid being a bear dinner.

Did the photographer get eaten?

I think the surveyor shot him later for all the help.

jcooli09: Seems to me that it falls under supporting the general welfare.

'General welfare'? Are you using that in the sense of the preamble or the Taxing and Spending clause? Neither seem to fit very well.

Darconix: jcooli09:
Seems to me that it falls under supporting the general welfare.

That's the problem with you libs. You can drive a truck full of Mexicans through the "general welfare" clause according to your interpretation.

Isn't Rush on now? Shouldn't you be letting him tell you what to think today?

Shaggy_C:
'General welfare'? Are you using that in the sense of the preamble or the Taxing and Spending clause? Neither seem to fit very well.

I was thinking the preamble.

Are you argueing that we shouldn't protect endangered species, or that we are doing so incorrectly?

Kanyon: keflex: True, because the California government can only work on one thing at a time.

Good point. What kind of role does CA's AG play in budget problems, pd771?

way too easy to make people take the bait
//though California should be worried about their budget

Why doesn't California pass a state law to protect its endangered species?

Hopefully (Hopefully...) Obama will fix it.

He has so much shiat to fix, I'm honestly unsure how he'll be able to do it all.

But let's hope it gets done!

pd771: Kanyon: keflex: True, because the California government can only work on one thing at a time.

Good point. What kind of role does CA's AG play in budget problems, pd771?

way too easy to make people take the bait
//though California should be worried about their budget

It no wonder you people let a troll like Darconix have so much power. Anyways, reading the article, it sounds like they'll win, and will most certainly win in a Cal court.

jcooli09: I was thinking the preamble.

Come now, that's an introduction to the document. It in no way should be taken as a 'catch all' when discussing the role of the Federal Government. You're really stretching if you think that two words should apply for anything deemed 'promoting the general Welfare' that Congress could ever come up with. Read the preamble and look at what shaky legal ground you're dealing with:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice that things like the 'common defence' and 'a more perfect union' are addressed later in the document (Article IV, Section 4 and Articles IV and VII, respectively). 'General welfare' is only addressed again under the 'Tax and Spending' clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), which is where you should be making your argument from.

It reads "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

This has been a contentious issue since the founding of the nation. Madison, I believe, thought that spending should be restricted to only that which was specifically outlined in the rest of the constitution. Others felt that spending should be used on anything deemed to be part of the 'general well-being of the nation'.

In either case, I'm a little hesitant to say that it's a direct responsibility of the federal government absent some extremely compelling case for saving a particular species. Having a generalized 'money pit' like the ESA strikes me as an overextension of government power.

pd771: pd771: Kanyon: keflex: True, because the California government can only work on one thing at a time.

Good point. What kind of role does CA's AG play in budget problems, pd771?

way too easy to make people take the bait
//though California should be worried about their budget

It no wonder you people let a troll like Darconix have so much power. Anyways, reading the article, it sounds like they'll win, and will most certainly win in a Cal court.


Why did you quote yourself? Don't do that