Posted on 08/13/2019 2:43:11 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The Trump administration is applying new regulations to protect endangered species, rolling back some requirements [in order] to ground the policy in scientific and economic factors, the Interior Department announced Monday.
The regulations, based on the 1973 Endangered Species Act, will “increase transparency and effectiveness and bring the administration of the Act into the 21st century,” the agency said.
The rules won’t extend the same protections to threatened species as are applied to those already on the endangered list. Nor will they look as far into the future to project what species face extinction.
The changes likely will draw litigation from liberal and environmental groups.
“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,” Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a prepared statement.
“The Act’s effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation. An effectively administered Act ensures more resources can go where they will do the most good: on-the-ground conservation,” Bernhardt, who took office in April, said.
The new reform should make the law more effective in protecting threatened species, said Daren Bakst, senior research fellow in agriculture policy for The Heritage Foundation.
“For over 45 years, the Endangered Species Act has failed to effectively recover species, with only about 3% of listed species getting delisted due to recovery efforts, largely due to how the federal government has implemented the law,” Bakst said in a written statement, adding:
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.
Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here, and here
“The rules won’t extend the same protections to threatened species as are applied to those already on the endangered list.”
This is a poorly worded statement and it implies something the rule change does not do - extend endangered species protections to species not already on the endangered species list. Species newly determined to be endangered could be added to the list of endangered species. NOTHING in the new rules implies otherwise.
This gist of what they are trying to do is to end the use of the law for capricious regulators actions that might restrict certain activities at some location but do so even when that restriction is unnecessary for preventing a species from becoming endangered.
The other gist of the new rules is to stop moving the goal posts on what constitutes a species as being endangered, and how that past moving of the goal posts has prevented acknowledging that the status of a species has improved to the point that it is no longer endangered. When the goal posts can continually be raised, species fail to come off the endangered list regardless of the improvement in their status.
If the endangered species act was implemented retroactively the way the “wild life preservation” activists want it implemented, a good portion of existing human settlement in North America would have to be returned to its “original and natural” pristine state. If that were done most of the environmental activists would become part of the newly decreed homeless.
I think I remember Canadian geese being on the protected list when I was a kid. Now their bacteria-infested poop is everywhere.
I don’t think this author writes very well. I put [in order] in front of “to” in the first sentence, because otherwise, readers could interpret the rule as actually repealing requirements for scientific and economic considerations, when it appears that the opposite was intended by the rule.
I think the writer is very good at what he does.
He is supposed to appear to report the news while at the same time confusing the readers
LOL!
That is completely unsustainable for a low birth rate, low survival species. But instead of pressuring Canada to get rid of the Innuit hunting, the ESA was used to declare threatened status based on computer models, not just for the ice, but models of the species itself. Junk or non-science all the way down.
Bingo!
Yes. The agencies in the federal government are all filled by activists - folks whose rational IS to control everything; it’s a control at all costs agenda. So the “rules” morph beyond original intent and then any rational pull back is shouted at by agency “insiders” as a dismantling of the “protections intended by the law”. When in fact no specific protection is “in the law”, its always what the extent of law is interpreted to mean, at any given time, by the bureaucrats in the regulatory state. When the agencies are than also led by activists, as they were under Obama, then the agencies and their “staff” are in sync - increase control over everything by all means possible - and you don’t hear of “agency insiders” in mass disagreement with their top bosses.
What galls me with some Liberal family-friends is they just assume that the motives of the activists in the agencies is always pure and necessary; the bureaucrats do not make wrong decisions.
Their position is illogical and irrational. It presumes that merely because you appoint certain people to a decision making body that (a) they are the smartest folks on the planet in their field, (b) there are no possible different or better ideas than theirs, and (c) to disagree with the appointed bureaucrats must assume you have bad motives, disastrously bad motives. Bureaucrats are saints, and to disagree with them must be evil. Yet these same voices are always screaming about “democracy” and then those they elect create more bureaucratic dictatorships to rule over them. Sheeple, sheeple, sheeple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.