[Carry_Okie]

I have a copy of the bill, but have been so busy I haven't thoroughly read it. Does it do anything to reverse the SCOTUS interpretation that "habitat modification" that could impair a vital function of the species - such as feeding, reproducing, sheltering - constituted a prohibited "take" under the Act - requiring an incidental take permit. The damned ITP and Habitat Conservation Plan was where the feds exhorted life and limb from the applicant in perpetuity.

It was the definition of "take" that exceeded both our treaty obligations and the Congress' legitimate Constitutional authority, all protestations of the SCOTUS to the contrary.

[tacticalogic]

It was the definition of "take" that exceeded both our treaty obligations and the Congress' legitimate Constitutional authority, all protestations of the SCOTUS to the contrary.

It exceeded Congress' authority right out of the gate, starting with that "substantial effects" crap.