I'm all for reasonable restrictions in the name of protecting the environment, conservation and preservation of species - but within reason.
It is a sore subject with me because I have seen friends nearly lose their homes because of over zealous envirowhackos ruining their livelihoods.
Well-stated. Part of the current problem with the Endangered Species Act is that it is too absolutist of a doctrine. Before extreme measures are taken to protect any species of life on earth, a couple facts should be considered:
1) Exactly how "unique" is the species we are trying to protect; e.g. is it a singular representation of a zoological family or just a slight variation of genetics exemplified by other similar species? AND
2) What overall impact on the ecosystem, if any, would a diminishing number of this species have?
As far as I know, neither of these are taken into consideration when resources relating to species protection are allocated, resulting not only in unnecessary displacement of human livelihood but an inevitable backlash against truly important environmental issues being fought with limited means.