Slashdot Mirror


Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces To Overhaul the Endangered Species Act (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The Endangered Species Act, which for 45 years has safeguarded fragile wildlife while blocking ranching, logging and oil drilling on protected habitats, is coming under attack from lawmakers, the White House and industry on a scale not seen in decades, driven partly by fears that the Republicans will lose ground in November's midterm elections. In the past two weeks, more than two dozen pieces of legislation, policy initiatives and amendments designed to weaken the law have been either introduced or voted on in Congress or proposed by the Trump administration.

The actions included a bill to strip protections from the gray wolf in Wyoming and along the western Great Lakes; a plan to keep the sage grouse, a chicken-size bird that inhabits millions of oil-rich acres in the West, from being listed as endangered for the next decade; and a measure to remove from the endangered list the American burying beetle, an orange-flecked insect that has long been the bane of oil companies that would like to drill on the land where it lives. [...] The new push to undo the wildlife protection law comes as Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, and is led by a president who has made deregulation -- the loosening of not only environmental protections but banking rules, car fuel efficiency standards and fair housing enforcement -- a centerpiece of his administration.

24 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Bastards by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stupid Reps. Go find your own planet to destroy, but leave mine alone.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  2. Overhaul is not the word you're looking for by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The word your looking for is "gut".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  3. They are getting their way at last by AlanObject · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read this and I just can't forget the Leonard Cohen song:

    Take the only tree that's left. Shove it up the hole in your culture.

    I don't know what else to say, except to point out that when they say "this will create jobs" what it really means is that some large corporate interests will make billions ravaging without any restraint the already-stressed ecosystem and some minor percentage of it will be paid out to workers with the least amount of benefits they can manage and no job security.

    So a beetle is gone. Who cares it was totally totally worth it.

  4. gray wolves? by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    conservation status is "least concern" and they're in europe and asia besides the USA.

    great grouse, threatened or near threaten, okay lets watch out for that one.

    but the burying beetle? world can live without it, we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter (and we're not going to lose it anyway, even with drilling, the land area its on is huge)

    1. Re:gray wolves? by mentil · · Score: 4, Funny

      Burying beetles feast on chaos butterflies. Do you really want to cause tsunamis in the pacific?! Think of the poor Asian children!

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:gray wolves? by Frank+Burly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't remember the particulars of the law, but I can see a case for making the local, rather than global population determinative. For example, if Grey Wolves are occupying keystone spot and killing all of them will give you a rampant deer population, and that will eat all of the rare lilies that some butterfly needs to reproduce . . . and so on. But instead we get lobbyists writing: "Dear Mr. President, there are too many species nowadays. Please allow us to eliminate some via stack ranking to eliminate the least economically valuable."

    3. Re:gray wolves? by habig · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not familiar with the rest of the list, but in MN and WI, the wolves certainly aren't endangered anymore. The state DNRs and the Federal Fish & Wildlife services have taken them off the list for valid "they're so many of them, we have to manage the population" reasons a couple times now: under Obama's watch, not Trump's. Anti-hunting activists sued to put them back on, over the objections of the experts.

      It's certainly possible that the conservation officers snuck a reasonable, as-requested-by-the-scientists thing into a list of dodgy requests. But that's not the way it's being reported, so it makes me wonder about the rest of the things being complained about.

      Anybody here know the particulars of the other species in the story, or is everyone just going to get wound up to the left or to the right in a partisan tizzy? The article was remarkably free of facts about the animals, just quotes from politicians on both sides

    4. Re:gray wolves? by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      conservation status is "least concern" and they're in europe and asia besides the USA.

      great grouse, threatened or near threaten, okay lets watch out for that one.

      but the burying beetle? world can live without it, we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter (and we're not going to lose it anyway, even with drilling, the land area its on is huge)

      Maybe, but you're looking at the most corrupt (and lobbyist riddled) department in one of the most corrupt administrations in US history, and a congress that has been at best enabling, and at worst (healthcare, tax cut) encouraging.

      Are they really the ones you're counting on to make wise decisions about endangered species?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:gray wolves? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      we have 2 million or maybe 30 million species of bugs in this world, losing that one won't matter

      History is full of examples where causing a single species to become extinct has caused very significant and completely unintended consequences for whole ecosystems.

      Saying that driving a few species into extinction won't cause any problems is like saying that deleting a few lines of code from an application won't cause any problems. Sure, there's a decent size chance you may be fine, but would you actually take the risk?

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    6. Re:gray wolves? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with "what's $species good for" is that we probably don't even know. The Chinese killed off sparrows during the Four Pest Campaigns in what's dubbed the Great Leap Forwards (also known as the Great Leap into a fucking Mess) because they allegedly ate grain and fruits. They did, but what they ate even more were locusts.

      I leave it to the reader to ponder just what the very unintended consequence was.

      You are allowed to learn from the blunders of others. In this case, that eliminating a species without knowing what this entails is stupid.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:gray wolves? by AndrewBuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      This video is probably the one you were thinking of. Very interesting video.:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  5. Re:This is an outrage but ... by DogDude · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a biology nerd. This is news that matters to me.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  6. of the people, by the people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Administration Join Forces

    Everything you need to know about the state of the union, right there.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:of the people, by the people by q_e_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many eagles have actually been killed by wind turbines as compared to pollution, or even in total? It may be an unfortunate, but acceptable, trade off if renewables lead to less overall damage, and assuming we don't want to go back to living in huts. Wind farms are subject to approvals, which take into account potential damage that may be done. If you look at the numbers, and we assume that about 50% of those killed are bald eagles then that's about 0.1% of the bald eagle population being killed by wind turbines per year - not very significant. The population decreased dramatically in the 150 years before 1918, from habitat loss and other factors. Wind turbines are an insignificant risk to bald eagles overall, even if each loss of such a majestic bird is a tragedy.

    2. Re:of the people, by the people by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good, then we can also agree to stop the hundreds of millions of birds that are killed by hunters in Texas every year?

      I am compelled to point out that it was a conservative - Dick Cheney - who tried to solve this very problem by shooting his bird-hunting friend in the face.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:of the people, by the people by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a common error in reasoning I see, typically among animal rights advocates. Concentrating on the number of deaths, rather than the effect of the deaths. From the standpoint of survival of the species, the fate of an individual bird does not matter. The only thing that matters is if the number of birds killed is sustainable. That is, is the overall population declining? Or is it remaining steady or increasing? As long as the overall population is not declining, it does not matter if hundreds of millions of individual birds are killed. The take is sustainable, and the species is not at risk.

      Mathematically, it's the first derivative of the species' population which is most important from a conservation standpoint. To a second order, the current population compared to historical population levels can be considered, although that gets clouded by things like changes in the environment and amount of available habitat as compared to decades ago. Unless the population is extremely low (like only in the hundreds), the fate of any individual member of the species is fairly irrelevant to the goal of preserving the species.

      So the number you should be most concerned with is the rate at which the species' population is declining, not the number of individuals killed. You see, nearly every animal in the wild is killed. Dying of old age is something only commonly experienced by humans and the domesticated animals we protect. The vast majority of wild animals live short lives before they're snuffed out in an often gruesome death caused by another animal. Whether that animal happens to be a human using his hands, or a wild animal using claws and teeth is irrelevant (other than how it improves the sustainability of that animal's population)..

  7. Re:Conservatives.... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*.

    Not if they're factually incorrect.

  8. Re:Conservatives.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now here is the really disturbing part - *their opinions, thoughts, and idea are just as valuable and just as worthwhile as yours*

    People have an equal right to their opinions, but it does not mean their opinions are equally right. The opinions of a flat earther are not as valuable and worthwhile as those of a cosmologist, for example, with regard to how the universe works, for example.

  9. Good! Partially, at least... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You people seem to assume that this act's list of endangered species actually is built upon sound science.

    So a review of this is certainly a good idea.

    That being said, we all know what interests drive this so I don't expect a sensible outcome either...

    1. Re:Good! Partially, at least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't a review. This is targeted specific species and areas that have been under attack by Oil and Ranch lobbyists for a decade (or more in some cases like the gray wolf.) This isn't some 'oh the data has changed, lets keep up' - which happens every day, all year long as field workers count the species and sightings and make esitmates.

      This is a sell out of your and your children's potential legacy to a short term profit so a few guys can get rich and say 'hey we brought 200 jobs into an area and only destroyed 10 species in the process!'.

  10. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by Nocturna81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, that's why the northern white rhino has been hunted to near extinction? As a recent example....

  11. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actual extinction, I think you'll find.

    (technically there's two left but they're both females so extinction is now guaranteed).

    --
    No sig today...
  12. Re:Brace yourself by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Species will now be not endangered or already extinct. Finding a specimen of a species that's defined as extinct is a temporary statistical error.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:Legalize poaching to protect endangered species by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the result of poachers.

    Not Dentists paying $50k for a Trophy Hunt.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.