Bush to relax protected species rules

[Fraggle145]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080811/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_endangered_species


By DINA CAPPIELLO
39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct. The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

ADVERTISEMENT

New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft first obtained by The Associated Press.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a "back door" to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

"We need to focus our efforts where they will do the most good," Kempthorne said in a news conference organized quickly after AP reported details of the proposal. "It is important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species. It is not possible to draw a link between greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of impacts on species."

If approved, the changes would represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1986. They would accomplish through regulations what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.

The changes would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize that might harm endangered wildlife and their habitat. Government wildlife experts currently perform tens of thousands of such reviews each year.

"If adopted, these changes would seriously weaken the safety net of habitat protections that we have relied upon to protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years," said John Kostyack, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming initiative.

Under current law, federal agencies must consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or to damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely. This initial review usually results in accommodations that better protect the 1,353 animals and plants in the U.S. listed as threatened or endangered and determines whether a more formal analysis is warranted.

The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects, according to the 30-page draft obtained by the AP.

"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said.

The director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, H. Dale Hall, said the changes would help focus expertise on "where we know we don't have a negative effect on the species but where the agency is vulnerable if we don't complete a consultation."

Responding to questions about the process, Hall said, "We will not do anything that leaves the public out of this process."

The new rules were expected to be formally proposed immediately, officials said. They would be subject to a 60-day public comment period before being finalized by the Interior Department, giving the administration enough time to impose them before November's presidential election. A new administration could freeze any pending regulations or reverse them, a process that could take months. Congress could also overturn the rules through legislation, but that could take even longer.

The proposal was drafted largely by attorneys in the general counsel's offices of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department, according to an official with the National Marine Fisheries Service, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan hadn't yet been circulated publicly. The two agencies' experts were not consulted until last week, the official said.

Between 1998 and 2002, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 300,000 consultations. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which evaluates projects affecting marine species, conducts about 1,300 reviews each year.

The reviews have helped safeguard protected species such as bald eagles, Florida panthers and whooping cranes. A federal government handbook from 1998 described the consultations as "some of the most valuable and powerful tools to conserve listed species."

In recent years, however, some federal agencies and private developers have complained that the process results in delays and increased construction costs.

"We have always had concerns with respect to the need for streamlining and making it a more efficient process," said Joe Nelson, a lawyer for the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, a trade group for home builders and the paper and farming industry.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the proposed changes illegal.

"This proposed regulation is another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door," she said. "If this proposed regulation had been in place, it would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the gray whale."

The Bush administration and Congress have attempted with mixed success to change the law.

In 2003, the administration imposed similar rules that would have allowed agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to reduce wildfire risks without asking the opinion of government scientists about whether threatened or endangered species and habitats might be affected. The pesticide rule was later overturned in court. The Interior Department, along with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule governing wildfire prevention.

In 2005, the House passed a bill that would have made similar changes to the Endangered Species Act, but the bill died in the Senate.

The sponsor of that bill, then-House Resources chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., told the AP Monday that allowing agencies to judge for themselves the effects of a project will not harm species or habitat.

"There is no way they can rubber stamp everything because they will end up in court for every decision," he said.

But internal reviews by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that about half the unilateral evaluations by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that determined wildfire prevention projects were unlikely to harm protected species were not legally or scientifically valid.

Those had been permitted under the 2003 rule changes.

"This is the fox guarding the hen house. The interests of agencies will outweigh species protection interests," said Eric Glitzenstein, the attorney representing environmental groups in the lawsuit over the wildfire prevention regulations. "What they are talking about doing is eviscerating the Endangered Species Act."

:eek: :eek: :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Another example of the Bush Administration trying to circumvent the government and do whatever it wants. God I am so pissed!!!

[C&CDean]

Get over it.

[olevetonahill]

what Dean said :P

[Fraggle145]

No.

[Chuck Bao]

Lame duck, my ***.

I think that's a quote I heard somewhere from some Bush staffer about protecting wetlands.

[Harry Beanbag]

Barbara Boxer talking about coming through the back door makes me feel icky.

[olevetonahill]

No.

Ok .
But I really dont want to see some stupid little fish Hold up a Project that will benefit the Public
Hell Id bet Most of us Have caught a Snail darter In our Lives :D

[OUHOMER]

This is no good. If they were ever going to build a subdivision near me, I was going to say.. wait a minute there's horny toads on that property.

Dang, now what am i going to do?:rolleyes:

[Turd_Ferguson]

Ok .
But I really dont want to see some stupid little fish Hold up a Project that will benefit the Public
Hell Id bet Most of us Have caught a Snail darter In our Lives :DI once shot a spotted owl.....with a crossbow....and I et it:D

[Curly Bill]

I once shot a spotted owl.....with a crossbow....and I et it:D

I once killed a snow owl with the stopper from a champagne bottle...

[Fraggle145]

Ok .
But I really dont want to see some stupid little fish Hold a Project that will benits the Public
Hell Id bet Most of us Have caught a Snail darte In our Lives :D

Agreed, but it is important to understand that fish's role in the ecosystem, if having it prevents, for example, a toxic algae from blooming and destroying the water supply it would be worth it to know it. These projects need inputs from the outside from people without a vested interest in the project.

It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary is dependent on his not understanding it.

[SoonerBorn68]

It was the f'ing polar bears who did it, blame them.

[Fraggle145]

"some of the most valuable and powerful tools to conserve listed species."

My favorite part, I guess we dont need those anymore...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Sooner Eclipse]

This thread makes me feel GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

About time some of the unbridled, abused power of the EPA is reined back. Environmental values need to be balanced against the damage they do to the economy, security and peoples of this country.

[Chuck Bao]

Prime example: too much Natty pee being released into Wister Lake. The fish get drunk, golden algae blooms and all of the women in the area get pregnant. Not a good thing.

[Turd_Ferguson]

My favorite part, I guess we dont need those anymore...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:Should I feel bad if I want to eradicate fly's and mosquito's?

[SoonerBorn68]

YES! Global warming alarmists have been halted in their tracks!


The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

Algore gets bitch slapped!

[mdklatt]

Algore

FTL

[Fraggle145]

This thread makes me feel GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

About time some of the unbridled, abused power of the EPA is reined back. Environmental values need to be balanced against the damage they do to the economy, security and peoples of this country.

It was reigned in as it is... Developers win one court case and thats it the EPA gets no appeal, by the fact that by the time it gets pushed through, whatever it is is already built.

The term damage there is a loaded term. Perhaps the Economy should be balanced against the damage i does to the environment... I mean we all have to live in whatever mess we make. Im sure if it came to security the environment would play second fiddle, but for example army bases are some of the best wildlife preserves we have. Save for Natural Disasters what damage does the environment do? :rolleyes:

It is not impossible to come up with compromises... I dont understand why we cant work with the environment :confused:. Why is it always $$$ vs. the Environment? That seems an easy choice to me... we live in the environment, but lets trade it for some bucks :mad:.

[Fraggle145]

Should I feel bad if I want to eradicate fly's and mosquito's?

I dont think it is possible, and the benefits of flies are pretty hard to trade... They pick up after everything. I'd be all for getting rid of mosquitos, they typically are not beneficial for an ecosystem in anyway I know of... (Edit: I was wrong here. Thanks Mike Rich) But the point is that many of these species offer services and functions within the environment that are irreplaceable.

[mdklatt]

Perhaps the Economy should be balanced against the damage i does to the environment... I mean we all have to live in whatever mess we make.

Privatize the profits, socialize the costs...it's the Republican way!



Why is it always $$$ vs. the Environment? That seems an easy choice to me... we live in the environment, but lets trade it for some bucks :mad:.

Gated communities allow you to keep that icky "environment" out.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I dont think it is possible, and the benefits of flies are pretty hard to trade... They pick up after everything. I'd be all for getting rid of mosquitos, they typically are not beneficial for an ecosystem in anyway I know of... But the point is that many of these species offer services and functions within the environment that are irreplaceable.I think the mosquito's feed the salmon of Capastrano....or sump'n.

[olevetonahill]

It was reigned in as it is... Developers win one court case and thats it the EPA gets no appeal, by the fact that by the time it gets pushed through, whatever it is is already built.

The term damage there is a loaded term. Perhaps the Economy should be balanced against the damage i does to the environment... I mean we all have to live in whatever mess we make. Im sure if it came to security the environment would play second fiddle, but for example army bases are some of the best wildlife preserves we have. Save for Natural Disasters what damage does the environment do? :rolleyes:

It is not impossible to come up with compromises... I dont understand why we cant work with the environment :confused:. Why is it always $$$ vs. the Environment? That seems an easy choice to me... we live in the environment, but lets trade it for some bucks :mad:.

Ill trade you My share of the enviroment How Much REAL cash ya gonna give me ???????:cool:

[Frozen Sooner]

I dont think it is possible, and the benefits of flies are pretty hard to trade... They pick up after everything. I'd be all for getting rid of mosquitos, they typically are not beneficial for an ecosystem in anyway I know of... But the point is that many of these species offer services and functions within the environment that are irreplaceable.

Lots of fish and birds and stuff feed on mosquitos, do they not?

[Fraggle145]

YES! Global warming alarmists have been halted in their tracks!


The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

Algore gets bitch slapped!

Why do we have to devalue it to friggin' Al Gore? Who cares about him? He is in the same money grubbin boat with the rest of em...

It bars the agencies from more than just the assesing of emissions it bars them from assessing anything at all. :eek:

[Fraggle145]

Lots of fish and birds and stuff feed on mosquitos, do they not?

True. I misspoke there. I'm just so frustrated... It doesnt matter much anyway as I doubt we could get rid of them, and even if we could, something else that they outcompete (likely something worse) would pop up to take its place.

[mdklatt]

Why do we have to devalue it to friggin' Al Gore?

It's not like the science is on their side, so that's all they have.

The strawman! It burns!

[MR2-Sooner86]

But the point is that many of these species offer services and functions within the environment that are irreplaceable.

You're right about that. I mean if the Eagle dies out, where else can I get southern fried Eagle legs, breast, and wings? Deep fried dolphine? Sea turtle eggs all scrabbled to perfection? How about some tiger meat? Seriously, eating chicken, cow, and pig gets old after a while.

I mean the only reason I'm pissed the dodo and mastodon are gone is I didn't get a chance to eat them. I bet they were delicious.

[Jerk]

http://baconexpress.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/huge-manatee.jpg

[olevetonahill]

Ok Skeeters feed the snail darter ,
But what hell good are Ticks and chiggers HUH HUH HUH ??????????????:P

[mdklatt]

Ok Skeeters feed the snail darter ,
But what hell good are Ticks and chiggers HUH HUH HUH ??????????????:P

They keep the makers of Off! in business. Why do you hate capitalism?

[olevetonahill]

They keep the makers of Off! in business. Why do you hate capitalism?

Thats why I like you and Fraggle Yall so Smart and stuff :cool:

[Turd_Ferguson]

They keep the makers of Off! in business. Why do you hate capitalism?Chigger's eat OFF for dinner.

[olevetonahill]

Oh and cant we Just have the skeeters ? Off would still be in buisness and Them ticks and Chiggers could be wiped out ?

[Okla-homey]

You either believe in the principle of natural selection or you don't. If you do, you shouldn't lament the demise of a species apprently incapable of adaptation to the demands of life in 2008. It's the "circle of life." And stuff.

If you believe in intelligent design, its okay to lament the pending extinction of species. Because the Creator made them and the Creator doesn't make mistakes.

[mdklatt]

Chigger's eat OFF for dinner.

I think you might be right about that.

:mad:

[tommieharris91]

You either believe in the principle of natural selection or you don't. If you do, you shouldn't lament the demise of a species apprently incapable of adaptation to the demands of life in 2008. It's the "circle of life." And stuff.

If you believe in intelligent design, its okay to lament the pending extinction of species. Because the Creator made them and the Creator doesn't make mistakes.

I can't wait to see Fraggle's response to this. :pop:

[mdklatt]

If you believe in intelligent design, its okay to lament the pending extinction of species. Because the Creator made them and the Creator doesn't make mistakes.

What's the ozone hole, God's vengeance on Australia?

[Okla-homey]

What's the ozone hole, God's vengeance on Australia?

I dunno. If you happen to be an Aboriginal Australian, you would probably conclude the white Aussies had it coming.;)

[Harry Beanbag]

You either believe in the principle of natural selection or you don't. If you do, you shouldn't lament the demise of a species apprently incapable of adaptation to the demands of life in 2008. It's the "circle of life." And stuff.

If you believe in intelligent design, its okay to lament the pending extinction of species. Because the Creator made them and the Creator doesn't make mistakes.


Exactly

[Tulsa_Fireman]

What's the ozone hole, God's vengeance on Australia?

Why is it there's giant holes in the ozone over the poles when no one down there has coal fired electric plants or use hairspray?

How come they align amazingly well with the poles and the "holes" in the Van Allen radiation belt?

Why are the over 50,000 scientists, many of which are leaders in their respective fields, ignored and denied when they say manmade global warming is a farce?

Why does my poop stink?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Why does my poop stink?Pig Out Palace:confused:

[Frozen Sooner]

You either believe in the principle of natural selection or you don't. If you do, you shouldn't lament the demise of a species apprently incapable of adaptation to the demands of life in 2008. It's the "circle of life." And stuff.

If you believe in intelligent design, its okay to lament the pending extinction of species. Because the Creator made them and the Creator doesn't make mistakes.

You either believe in "intelligent design" or you don't. Since the Creator doesn't make mistakes, he would be incapable of letting a species perish that hadn't already served its function.

Whee! It's FUN to tell everyone else what they believe!

psst-Homey, here's where your argument fails: Just because someone recognizes that evolution by natural selection occurs in nature doesn't mean that they necessarily think that evolution by natural selection will automatically bring about results that are good for mankind.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I believe ninjas live in my pants.

[mdklatt]

Why is it there's giant holes in the ozone over the poles when no one down there has coal fired electric plants or use hairspray?

LOL




How come they align amazingly well with the poles and the "holes" in the Van Allen radiation belt?


Man, I thought ozone hole denialism was long gone. Apparently not. They're aligned with the poles because that's where the coldest stratospheric temperatures and circumpolar vortexes are.




Why are the over 50,000 scientists, many of which are leaders in their respective fields


Is this that Oregon Petition crap again? How many of them are experts in fields that are relevant to climate change? Not many, and that's ignoring the blatant falsifications.





ignored and denied when they say manmade global warming is a farce?


Because most of them are not involved in climatology in any way, and the ones that do aren't putting forth any actual research that stands up to
scrutiny. Instead, they keep putting forth the same logically inconsistent mess of hand-waving and demonstrably false arguments. And lies, plenty of lies.

[soonerscuba]

I bet we could get a lot of clean energy if we hooked up a generator to Teddy Roosevelt's spinning corpse. This is bad, bad policy on so many levels it's mind bottling.

[mdklatt]

I bet we could get a lot of clean energy if we hooked up a generator to Teddy Roosevelt's spinning corpse. This is bad, bad policy on so many levels it's mind bottling.

Don't worry, God will fix it!

[Sooner Eclipse]

I bet we could get a lot of clean energy if we hooked up a generator to Teddy Roosevelt's spinning corpse. This is bad, bad policy on so many levels it's mind bottling.

Teddy would have already beat the commie outa the both of you two by now. He knew how to use the "Big Stick".

[Fraggle145]

You either believe in "intelligent design" or you don't. Since the Creator doesn't make mistakes, he would be incapable of letting a species perish that hadn't already served its function.

Whee! It's FUN to tell everyone else what they believe!

psst-Homey, here's where your argument fails: Just because someone recognizes that evolution by natural selection occurs in nature doesn't mean that they necessarily think that evolution by natural selection will automatically bring about results that are good for mankind.

Bingo.

[Fraggle145]

You either believe in the principle of natural selection or you don't. If you do, you shouldn't lament the demise of a species apprently incapable of adaptation to the demands of life in 2008. It's the "circle of life." And stuff.

If you believe in intelligent design, its okay to lament the pending extinction of species. Because the Creator made them and the Creator doesn't make mistakes.

Mike Rich did this a lot more eloquently than I probably can, but here goes...

Of course they are incapable of adapting (not all of them mind you), we are causing more changes to the Earth's ecosystem faster than has ever been seen before save for a meteor from the sky...

The species that are adaptive are typically known as "weeds" they reproduce fast, use up all the resources and move on... Sounds a lot like a species I know :(

Like Mike said before, if there was a creator he wouldnt have been capable of making the mistake of making a species that we would be capable of destroying. Unless you think the creators plan is to have us (one of his perfect creations) eventually die out via pestilence, starvation and all things horrible.

I lament the loss of species because basically we are speeding up and increasing the selection pressure on a whole load of species and we dont even know what their function is in the ecosystem that we rely on to persist.

Like I have said before the microbes will be here long after we are gone as virtually everyone of them is potentially anywhere and hence are capable of adapting to anything much more rapidly than a multicellular organism could ever hope to simply due to their short generation time and thus increased chances for mutation... not to even mention horizontal gene transfer where they can pick up bits and pieces of eachother's genomes for increased functionality.

So sure kill em all, why worry about it? who cares what they do? Something else will come along and do it, that doesnt mean they will do it "better" or in a way that makes our lives easier or even allows us to live period?

[Fraggle145]

Ok Skeeters feed the snail darter ,
But what hell good are Ticks and chiggers HUH HUH HUH ??????????????:P

They are good at making more ticks and chiggers... I'm sure something eats them or relies on them... maybe not something we like like bloodborne diseases, but the blood borne diseases are happy ;)

[Fraggle145]

Why does my poop stink?

I think mdklatt addressed the rest of these questions so I'll take this one...

Because your intestinal track is anoxic and acidic along with a bunch of other things so the symbiotic microbes in there use Sulfur along with other smelly compounds to try to break down your food into chunks that they can use, whose byproducts your cells can assimilate along with all of the other enzymes and stuff your body uses to break down food.

[Fraggle145]

Teddy would have already beat the commie outa the both of you two by now. He knew how to use the "Big Stick".

He also knew the importance of coexisting with the environment.

[Okla-homey]

psst-Homey, here's where your argument fails: Just because someone recognizes that evolution by natural selection occurs in nature doesn't mean that they necessarily think that evolution by natural selection will automatically bring about results that are good for mankind.

Hasn't it to date? Frankly, I'm quite pleased by the fact dinosaurs are extinct. Those things would have been a major pain in the arse to live among for us humans. Particularly the carnivorous varieties.

But seriously, please name a defunct species the total extinction of which has had a appreciable negative effect on mankind. I honestly can't think of one. Seems to me here in North America, we could probably use more predators capable of keeping the deer population in check, but the downside of a robust wolf and panther population would probably cause more problems than it would be worth.

[Harry Beanbag]

You either believe in "intelligent design" or you don't. Since the Creator doesn't make mistakes, he would be incapable of letting a species perish that hadn't already served its function.

Whee! It's FUN to tell everyone else what they believe!

psst-Homey, here's where your argument fails: Just because someone recognizes that evolution by natural selection occurs in nature doesn't mean that they necessarily think that evolution by natural selection will automatically bring about results that are good for mankind.


Actually, his argument is fine. Where your's falls apart is when you fail to realize that natural selection also applies to mankind. If humans are supposed to all die because they drive SUV's instead of ride bicycles then that's natural selection at work.

[Hamhock]

we could probably use more predators capable of keeping the deer population in check,

you've officially offended me.

[olevetonahill]

Actually, his argument is fine. Where your's falls apart is when you fail to realize that natural selection also applies to mankind. If humans are supposed to all die because they drive SUV's instead of ride bicycles then that's natural selection at work.

I agree Harry .
It also goes to the saying If we aint Created , then If we Kill our selves
Is that Not also Natural selection ?
**** the Ozone , Drill fer Mo Oil.
Spek Harry :D

[olevetonahill]

you've officially offended me.

Yea thats what Hunters and shat are for Huh ?
:D

[Okla-homey]

Yea thats what Hunters and shat are for Huh ?
:D


yeap, but the danged ol' enviro-wackenhuts won't abide a reasonable deer season in lots of locales. The result is lots of skinny deer and oodles of car-deer strikes. The deer herd is in need of substantial culling in lots of places nowadays.

[olevetonahill]

yeap, but the danged ol' enviro-wackenhuts won't abide a reasonable deer season in lots of locales. The result is lots of skinny deer and oodles of car-deer strikes. The deer herd is in need of substantial culling in lots of places nowadays.

the Ones I been seeing Out My winder aint skinny
Im thinking a Great Fall season Harvest for the Hunters and I get to see More healthy Ones again Next year

[Hamhock]

The deer herd is in need of substantial culling in lots of places nowadays.

agreed. especially in urban/suburban green belt areas. the problem is that deer rifles and kids playing in the back yard 200 yards away don't mix.

if only there was a safer, shorter range, quieter method of harvesting the deer....:texan:

[Okla-homey]

agreed. especially in urban/suburban green belt areas. the problem is that deer rifles and kids playing in the back yard 200 yards away don't mix.

if only there was a safer, shorter range, quieter method of harvesting the deer....:texan:


Hmmm. Might it involve a pointed projectile fletched with feathers?

[olevetonahill]

Hmmm. Might it involve a pointed projectile fletched with feathers?

Naw it s called a car to run em Over with :D

[Jerk]

Save the Dodo Bird!

Serious question for enviros: Is the ultimate goal here a 'command economy' and a return to an agrarian society, centralized, of course, "to each according to his needs"? And where do YOU expect to fit into all of this?

[mdklatt]

Serious question for enviros: Is the ultimate goal here a 'command economy' and a return to an agrarian society, centralized, of course, "to each according to his needs"? And where do YOU expect to fit into all of this?

The ultimate goal is to have everyone clean up their own ****ing mess. Who benefited from the mess at Picher, OK? Who's cleaning it up? Not the owners of the mines. Who pays for air pollution? Not the polluters. On and on and on. There is no such thing as a free market, because all the costs are never made transparent to the consumer. And any attempt to do so is met with denial and/or hostility.

We've had this discussion before. Let's say every round trip you make to Tulsa puts enough pollution in the air to trigger one asthma attack. Whose responsibility is it to pay for the inhaler?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Yours, because your broke *** has asthma in the first place.

100 years ago, would would've died at a young age. Now, there's medical advances but they aren't free.

[Fraggle145]

yeap, but the danged ol' enviro-wackenhuts won't abide a reasonable deer season in lots of locales. The result is lots of skinny deer and oodles of car-deer strikes. The deer herd is in need of substantial culling in lots of places nowadays.

2 points here and I totally agree with you, the enviro-wackenhuts have it all wrong. Most of them wouldnt know basic biology if it bit them in the ***. (1) all of the top predators are gone because we killed them all... you dont see a lot of wolves, panthers, bobcats and bears anymore. (2) so then we need to fill the role as top predator if we dont take enough it results in sick deer and stupid things like deer birth control, which is just about the dumbest thing I have ever seen.

[Fraggle145]

Just because someone recognizes that evolution by natural selection occurs in nature doesn't mean that they necessarily think that evolution by natural selection will automatically bring about results that are good for mankind.


natural selection also applies to mankind. If humans are supposed to all die because they drive SUV's instead of ride bicycles then that's natural selection at work.

You are both saying the same thing just in a different way.

And I agree with you Harry natural selection does apply to us. I prefer not to be selected against by creating an environment that nothing else can live in, much less ourselves.

[Fraggle145]

Save the Dodo Bird!

Serious question for enviros: Is the ultimate goal here a 'command economy' and a return to an agrarian society, centralized, of course, "to each according to his needs"? And where do YOU expect to fit into all of this?

I want a society that can balance its needs and wants with the environment. Just because it is there doesnt mean that we should use it all up, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt use it either. And I'm not saying we shouldnt have nice things or be able to have more than we need, we should just do it in a responsible way.

I would like us to take some responsibility for the things that we do and clean up our messes, we have to live in it. We should also realize that there is an importance to having and being around the beauty of nature that is important to us mentally (studies have shown that it reduces stress, which is linked to ecological fitness). I just would like us to make informed decisions and instead of always wanting more more money... I'd rather make sure that I live longer and healthier and that my progeny would live longer and healthier.

I'd like to fit in like I do now... I have nice things, I try not to use too much that it has negative affects on those around me and I try to make informed decisions and understand how what I do plays into the ecosystem.

[Fraggle145]

I agree Harry .
It also goes to the saying If we aint Created , then If we Kill our selves
Is that Not also Natural selection ?
**** the Ozone , Drill fer Mo Oil.
Spek Harry :D

Well that would be natural selection against people that kill themselves... over thousands of generations if it was bad to kill yourself eventually less people would kill themselves. However if you have kids before you kill yourself you may have passed on whatever it was that allowed you to be able to kill yourself. So it only really is effective if you kill yourself before you make babies. :D

Keep the Ozone I dont want to burn to death, drill for more oil, but look for alternatives that might be able to solve our problems in < 10yrs when the new oil gets here so we arent on the Middle East tit forever. spek Olevet :P

[Fraggle145]

Hasn't it to date? Frankly, I'm quite pleased by the fact dinosaurs are extinct. Those things would have been a major pain in the arse to live among for us humans. Particularly the carnivorous varieties.

But seriously, please name a defunct species the total extinction of which has had a appreciable negative effect on mankind. I honestly can't think of one. Seems to me here in North America, we could probably use more predators capable of keeping the deer population in check, but the downside of a robust wolf and panther population would probably cause more problems than it would be worth.

1) I would say we move on to using something else up that we fail to notice. 2) we are starting to see some of the effects in fisheries of losing certain species as they can regulate both the trophic level above and below them. hence we are seeing more toxic algae blooms do to losses in top predator fish, which allows the planktivorous fish to eat all the zooplankton, thus the zooplankton can no longer feed on the algae and keep it in check. That is one example.

[Frozen Sooner]

Actually, his argument is fine. Where your's falls apart is when you fail to realize that natural selection also applies to mankind. If humans are supposed to all die because they drive SUV's instead of ride bicycles then that's natural selection at work.

Read what I wrote. Then read what you wrote. Then recognize that your attempt at agreeing with Homey and disagreeing with me actually wound up supporting my argument.

[Frozen Sooner]

Hasn't it to date? Frankly, I'm quite pleased by the fact dinosaurs are extinct. Those things would have been a major pain in the arse to live among for us humans. Particularly the carnivorous varieties.

But seriously, please name a defunct species the total extinction of which has had a appreciable negative effect on mankind. I honestly can't think of one. Seems to me here in North America, we could probably use more predators capable of keeping the deer population in check, but the downside of a robust wolf and panther population would probably cause more problems than it would be worth.

Plenty of examples in history of humans wiping out a nuisance species to later find that their primary prey was more of a nuisance than the original species.

[Hamhock]

you dont see a lot of bobcats anymore.


he walked near my treestand. what was I supposed to do? [hairGel]

[Hamhock]

2 points here and I totally agree with you, the enviro-wackenhuts have it all wrong. Most of them wouldnt know basic biology if it bit them in the ***. (1) all of the top predators are gone because we killed them all... you dont see a lot of wolves, panthers, bobcats and bears anymore. .

do you have data to back this up?

i'm not being a smart a**, you're much more of a biologist than I, but my perception as a hunter is that coyote, bobcat, etc are on this rise in this area and the same is said for bears etc, in their parts of the country.

[sooneron]

do you have data to back this up?

i'm not being a smart a**, you're much more of a biologist than I, but my perception as a hunter is that coyote, bobcat, etc are on this rise in this area and the same is said for bears etc, in their parts of the country.

I'm not so sure that they are on the rise, it's more of a dealio that we are encroaching upon where they live more and more. Therefore, they go looking in neighborhoods for food and you have bears wandering around the malls in Paramus, NJ.


Peeps that are glibly spouting off natural selection should shut it. What we are doing has nothing to do with "natural".

I'm not surprised that Kempthorne is behind the whole species act, he scored a whopping 1% for his senatorial career as far as conservation is concerned. Big business' "donations" are finally paying off some dividends. I'm not surprised by anything that this admin does environmentally anymore. They hired Philip Cooney, afterall.

[Frozen Sooner]

You know, it's not as if humanity hasn't been screwing around with natural selection for our own gain for millenia anyhow. Unless, of course, you think that there were majestic herds of Herefords sweeping down the plains at some point in history, or roving packs of toy poodles, or even many of the food crops we have today in their present form.

[47straight]

Sorry, all I heard was "Blah blah blah I don't understand the functioning of the separation of powers and the regulatory powers delegated to the executive branch blah blah blah BUSH SUCKS."

The essence of which is of course, "Bush Sucks."

However tired you may feel trying to edumucate the f'in hillbillies on ecology, I'm way more tired of trying to give civics lesson to people who are upset when they don't get their way.

[Fraggle145]

do you have data to back this up?

i'm not being a smart a**, you're much more of a biologist than I, but my perception as a hunter is that coyote, bobcat, etc are on this rise in this area and the same is said for bears etc, in their parts of the country.


I'm not so sure that they are on the rise, it's more of a dealio that we are encroaching upon where they live more and more. Therefore, they go looking in neighborhoods for food and you have bears wandering around the malls in Paramus, NJ.

Sooneron is pretty right on here. We are getting closer to them so we see more of them.

Most of the studies that I have seen are from the Georgia area (since I did my M.S. work there), and basically all of them showed a decline in bobcat populations due to outright killing, and getting hit on roads, and this all had negative effects on the deer populations. I will have to look around to find the papers as it isnt my main area of study, but I'll see what I can find for you.

[soonerscuba]

Sorry, all I heard was "Blah blah blah I don't understand the functioning of the separation of powers and the regulatory powers delegated to the executive branch blah blah blah BUSH SUCKS."

The essence of which is of course, "Bush Sucks."

However tired you may feel trying to edumucate the f'in hillbillies on ecology, I'm way more tired of trying to give civics lesson to people who are upset when they don't get their way.
For such a high minded administrative (read: not civics, there's a difference) specialist you seem to not realize that most people have way more of a problem with the justification than with the process.

[Fraggle145]

Sorry, all I heard was "Blah blah blah I don't understand the functioning of the separation of powers and the regulatory powers delegated to the executive branch blah blah blah BUSH SUCKS."

The essence of which is of course, "Bush Sucks."

However tired you may feel trying to edumucate the f'in hillbillies on ecology, I'm way more tired of trying to give civics lesson to people who are upset when they don't get their way.

I am not tired of trying to tell people about what I know about ecology and have never said that. Instead of whining that people dont understand why dont you enlighten me.

I fail to see how this is anything more than the executive subverting the powers that have been granted to the agencies.

[47straight]

For such a high minded administrative (read: not civics, there's a difference) specialist you seem to not realize that most people have way more of a problem with the justification than with the process.


And you and many others just don't seem to realize that whatever good things you have to say just get glossed over when you play the "Bush Sucks" card over and over again. And especially when using conclusory, self-contradicting, and non-sensical explanations of how "gub'mint" works.




Feel free to pick apart "gub'mint."

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But dammit, Bush Sucks!

How else are we supposed to waggle our fingers and collectively sigh as once again the sucktastic suckery of George Walker Suck-Bush leaps into the forefront?

Suck-suckity-sucky-suck-sucko-suck?

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH!?

[Fraggle145]

Sorry, all I heard was "Blah blah blah I don't understand the functioning of the separation of powers and the regulatory powers delegated to the executive branch blah blah blah BUSH SUCKS."

The essence of which is of course, "Bush Sucks."

However tired you may feel trying to edumucate the f'in hillbillies on ecology, I'm way more tired of trying to give civics lesson to people who are upset when they don't get their way.

The other thing I have to say about that is that I dont think I have ever seriously called anyone a f'n hillbilly on this board... and I dont think that I talk down to anyone on here, at least not intentionally. A lot of the people that I work with are the same f'n hillbillies you are talking about and their local knowledge has helped me out on more than one occasion.

So if you think I look down on anyone for asking me questions about ecology you have it completely backwards, while I may not agree with them on everything and I may get frustrated if someone disagrees with me, I will be more than happy to try to share any of the information or knowledge that I have.

[47straight]

I am not tired of trying to tell people about what I know about ecology and have never said that. Instead of whining that people dont understand why dont you enlighten me.

I didn't mean to say that you were, and to put words in your mouth. I probably assumed it after 5 thread pages.


I fail to see how this is anything more than the executive subverting the powers that have been granted to the agencies.

The agencies are a part of the the executive. They are the same branch. It's like you are saying Bush is subverting himself. The agencies only have power that has been delegated from Congress. If the agency has the ability to shape a regulation, then the President is within his authority to shape it. The regulations, within the limits established by Congress, are within his power to change. One of the regulations, apparently, is how public works in particular are to be reviewed. If this method of approving goes beyond the authority delegated, then it can be stopped with a lawsuit. If it is within the agency's authority, then it might be a bad idea but nothing's been subverted. Then it's up to Congress to change the law establishing the EPA or whomever.

I hope I'm telling you junk you already know, but I thought that would be a first attempt.

My original point though is that I agree that it's a bad idea. I don't agree that it's happening only through a subversion of power.

[47straight]

The other thing I have to say about that is that I dont think I have ever seriously called anyone a f'n hillbilly on this board... and I dont think that I talk down to anyone on here, at least not intentionally. A lot of the people that I work with are the same f'n hillbillies you are talking about and their local knowledge has helped me out on more than one occasion.




Sorry, "f'n hillbilly" was meant as a term of affection to your loyal opposition, and didn't mean to imply you were talking down to them.

[Fraggle145]

Sorry, "f'n hillbilly" was meant as a term of affection to your loyal opposition, and didn't mean to imply you were talking down to them.

Cool thx :D

[Fraggle145]

I didn't mean to say that you were, and to put words in your mouth. I probably assumed it after 5 thread pages.



The agencies are a part of the the executive. They are the same branch. It's like you are saying Bush is subverting himself. The agencies only have power that has been delegated from Congress. If the agency has the ability to shape a regulation, then the President is within his authority to shape it. The regulations, within the limits established by Congress, are within his power to change. One of the regulations, apparently, is how public works in particular are to be reviewed. If this method of approving goes beyond the authority delegated, then it can be stopped with a lawsuit. If it is within the agency's authority, then it might be a bad idea but nothing's been subverted. Then it's up to Congress to change the law establishing the EPA or whomever.

I hope I'm telling you junk you already know, but I thought that would be a first attempt.

My original point though is that I agree that it's a bad idea. I don't agree that it's happening only through a subversion of power.

If the powers are granted by congress isnt that the legislative? so if it is within the power of the president to say this agency that congress set out to do x is not going to do x anymore isnt that him subverting congress? :confused:

[soonerscuba]

And you and many others just don't seem to realize that whatever good things you have to say just get glossed over when you play the "Bush Sucks" card over and over again. And especially when using conclusory, self-contradicting, and non-sensical explanations of how "gub'mint" works.

That is quite the strawman you have built up there. I guess you should go ahead and burn it.

I guess, I am just really confused by your point. I have never said the process doesn't work, I said I don't like the justification. Are you basically saying you would listen to what others had to say if they agree with your politics, or didn't comment on executive decisions. You do realize that I don't think anybody has actually uttered the phrase "Bush sucks", they don't like the policy, which you know is different than the man.


Feel free to pick apart "gub'mint."
Sure thing. If Lockheed Martin, which receives 95% of it's revenue from the US government wishes to make a species extinct by building a factory over a marsh, is there no government oversight as it's a private company or total government compliance as it's wholly funded by the taxpayer? Wrap your brain around that.

[soonerscuba]

If the powers are granted by congress isnt that the legislative? so if it is within the power of the president to say this agency that congress set out to do x is not going to do x anymore isnt that him subverting congress? :confused:
If you want to get to the nitty-gritty, the agency system isn't technically Constitutional because it's outsourcing congressional and executive power to another vague branch of government. However, the flip side is that it prevents the executive and congress from personally having to deal with every aspect of American life.

So, while people bitch, it can be pretty good at getting things done, and it's the best solution we've got right now. While this particular decision is a terrible one, if we had to get the approval of Congress for oversight, it would be a nightmare, it's better off in the executive.

[Okla-homey]

The other thing I have to say about that is that I dont think I have ever seriously called anyone a f'n hillbilly on this board... and I dont think that I talk down to anyone on here, at least not intentionally. A lot of the people that I work with are the same f'n hillbillies you are talking about and their local knowledge has helped me out on more than one occasion.

So if you think I look down on anyone for asking me questions about ecology you have it completely backwards, while I may not agree with them on everything and I may get frustrated if someone disagrees with me, I will be more than happy to try to share any of the information or knowledge that I have.

I for one think you have always been very nice on here. An athiest heathen, but very nice notwithstanding that fact.;)

[Okla-homey]

If the powers are granted by congress isnt that the legislative? so if it is within the power of the president to say this agency that congress set out to do x is not going to do x anymore isnt that him subverting congress? :confused:

aH SO! You have struck upon the enigma that is the Administrative State -- the fourth branch of gubmint. It legislates, it adjudicates and it enforces. All in one. Quite efficient, if unconstitutional. Nevertheless, our complex society couldn't function without this three-headed monster.

It works like this. Congress passes an enabling statute that creates a new bureacracy. That bureacracy resides in the executive branch under the WH. That bureacracy gets to make its own regulations and enforce them against all us chilluns. The regulations created by the bureacracies so created have been deemed the law of the land by the courts. Thus, you can go to jail or be required to pay fines if you bust 'em. And no one elected by the folks has anything to do with the creation of those regulations. What's more, the bureacracies get to set up their own judges where the cases are "tried." Stunning turn of events don't you think?

[Fraggle145]

aH SO! You have struck upon the enigma that is the Administrative State -- the fourth branch of gubmint. It legislates, it adjudicates and it enforces. All in one. Quite efficient, if unconstitutional. Nevertheless, our complex society couldn't function without this three-headed monster.

It works like this. Congress passes an enabling statute that creates a new bureacracy. That bureacracy resides in the executive branch under the WH. That bureacracy gets to make its own regulations and enforce them against all us chilluns because they have been deemed the law of the land by the courts. Stunning turn of events don't you think?

Heh. And I thought science was hard ;)

[Okla-homey]

Heh. And I thought science was hard ;)


Brother, there are lots people who make a fine living solely practicing Administrative law.

[47straight]

If the powers are granted by congress isnt that the legislative? so if it is within the power of the president to say this agency that congress set out to do x is not going to do x anymore isnt that him subverting congress? :confused:


Congress gives the power to the executive branch by making a law, saying "we create an agency that can regulate effects on the environment." That agency is part of the executive branch. It is within the executive power to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Thus, the EPA's power is inherently executive power. Congress can always rescind that power by changing the law setting up the agency.

Scuba is right in that there are some constitutional scholars (and judges) who think that the delegation power as it exists today is unconstitutional, but that it is really hard to imagine a "pure" system that would actually work with what we expect government to do.

I think the problem in your scenario is how congress lays out "x." They don't explicitly say what all the different standards will be; that's the whole point of having an agency do it. The law "x" giving the power to the agency, is not just "hey, protect the environment." It's more like, "taking into acount and balancing A, B, C... (ad naseum), protect the environment." Here, I'm assuming Congress didn't explictly give the review procedure for public projects. They probably (again, assuming) gave wider standards for the agency to develop the review process. Thus to rein in this executive power, Congress needs to give them a shorter leash.


I'm glad we're having this conversation. Sorry for being an ***.

[soonerscuba]

Heh. The SO falls on one of two sides in political threads. Stupid people yelling weird generalizations at each other or detailed discussions of the most boring aspect of government imaginable. Kudos all around.

[Fraggle145]

Congress gives the power to the executive branch by making a law, saying "we create an agency that can regulate effects on the environment." That agency is part of the executive branch. It is within the executive power to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Thus, the EPA's power is inherently executive power. Congress can always rescind that power by changing the law setting up the agency.

Scuba is right in that there are some constitutional scholars (and judges) who think that the delegation power as it exists today is unconstitutional, but that it is really hard to imagine a "pure" system that would actually work with what we expect government to do.

I think the problem in your scenario is how congress lays out "x." They don't explicitly say what all the different standards will be; that's the whole point of having an agency do it. The law "x" giving the power to the agency, is not just "hey, protect the environment." It's more like, "taking into acount and balancing A, B, C... (ad naseum), protect the environment." Here, I'm assuming Congress didn't explictly give the review procedure for public projects. They probably (again, assuming) gave wider standards for the agency to develop the review process. Thus to rein in this executive power, Congress needs to give them a shorter leash.


I'm glad we're having this conversation. Sorry for being an ***.

Me too. its been really informative for me. I still think this decision sucks. :D You werent being an *** before I just misunderstood you I think.

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. The SO falls on one of two sides in political threads. Stupid people yelling weird generalizations at each other or detailed discussions of the most boring aspect of government imaginable. Kudos all around.

I better damn well fall into the latter group you pinko bolshevik.

[soonerscuba]

I better damn well fall into the latter group you pinko bolshevik.
Hey, you taught me the difference between endorse and indorse, I would say the latter, you ice packed defeatist-alarmist-appeaser.

[Fraggle145]

Heh. The SO falls on one of two sides in political threads. Stupid people yelling weird generalizations at each other or detailed discussions of the most boring aspect of government imaginable. Kudos all around.

I like the 2nd type a lot better... at least then I can learn something. Good jorb everyone, keep it up. :cool: :pop:

[Harry Beanbag]

I like the 2nd type a lot better... at least then I can learn something. Good jorb everyone, keep it up. :cool: :pop:


I think they both can be fun. :D And my interpretation of scuba's post was that every political thread has the same people posting in them, sometimes they just turn out differently. ;)

[Fraggle145]

I think they both can be fun. :D And my interpretation of scuba's post was that every political thread has the same people posting in them, sometimes they just turn out differently. ;)

Heh. I seem to end up in every environmental, global warming, and god thread... I cant resist them.

http://www.zlimmer.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/lays-potato-chips-regular.jpg

[Harry Beanbag]

Heh. I seem to end up in every environmental, global warming, and god thread... I cant resist them.


Well, those topics do all have one thing in common....religion. ;)

[Fraggle145]

Well, those topics do all have one thing in common....religion. ;)

LOL :D

[Blue]

I think they both can be fun. :D And my interpretation of scuba's post was that every political thread has the same people posting in them, sometimes they just turn out differently. ;)

I like the former and I think yer all a bunch o poosies.