It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump administration wants to roll back the Endangered Species Act

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: daveinats

Pinko commie bots I recon , wording and grammar;s always the givaway.


Are you an Australian sub bot?

What is pinko commie? Mila kunis?

I wish she was here.




posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


How do you feel about the short list i provided of what people are having problems with.

If you are referring to this list:


* Economic factors could be considered when the status of a species is reviewed for ESA protection.

To some degree, economics should be considered. Economics can become a life/death situation in any society which runs on money. Just imagine how you would feel if you lost your job, your income, and your home over a snail darter. That has happened to people, and it has been used to force the sale of land from family farms spanning generations to government.

No one (at least that I know) wants to abandon species over minor economic considerations. But there is also the reverse problem: no one wants to be financially destroyed because of some sub-species that someone discovered. A balanced approach is always a good idea. Look back at my posts where I mentioned the bear. Yes, black bears are rare here and should be protected, but not when the bear is attacking a person. Under present law, shooting a black bear that is killing you is still a serious crime. No one should be forced to choose between death and prison over the actions of an animal, just like no one should be forced into extreme poverty in the same way.


* Species given a "threatened" designation would not necessarily enjoy the same protections as those considered "endangered."

As it works today, there are only a few lists, such as "endangered" and "threatened." That leaves no room for tailoring the law to individual circumstances. I think allowing a more customized approach to species which are having issues with population is potentially a good idea. The devil is in the details.


* Changes could preclude existing requirements as to which federal agencies are consulted on a prospective listing.

I'm unsure of the details here. I would hope agencies which have a vested interest would be consulted in all cases, but I also know there is no reason to bring the DEA in because polar bears are upset over icebergs.

Unless we're planning on giving the polar bears opiates. I am against that.


* How critical habitat designations are made could ignore a species' historic habitat that is currently unoccupied by that species.

That actually makes sense in some cases. If the historic habitat cannot be reasonably returned to an inhabited state, say, because there's a city there now, it is simply not prudent to try and do so. It is less critical if there are similar habitats nearby that can support the species under consideration.

Take the spotted barn owl... (PLEASE!)... there are square miles of prime mature forest that need thinned or they will start to decay. What would it hurt to move some of those silly owls to another place nearby with similar conditions, harvest the mature trees (thereby strengthening the forest) and then rotate them back when the forest has regrown?

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Now the question i have is are these 4 changes so important that they need to be inside the bill.

I have read that most of the other changes are bipartizan and most are not against them but they would have a real effect on the day to day of the epa.

to hoping they can get some change without allowing big money to take over cause money is the most powerful force the gov. deals with.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: angeldoll

You do know we don't have African lions in the US right?


You do know Trump recently said Americans can bring back the heads of lions to the states, right?

No. Of course you don't.


The African lion population, which was declared vulnerable in 1996, has decreased 43 percent in the last 21 years.


thehill.com...

www.newsweek.com...


It’s called culling. If you work with the scientists in their efforts in conservation and get the chance to legally have one then why not? The fact remains that habitat destruction is their biggest enemy, and there is basically no more space left in Africa for a new viable population of lions.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




well sociopaths rule the world. Most rulers since the beginning of time have been just that. How does that make you feel?

Glad I'm not one of them I guess..I don't bow down to, or respect many leaders anyway.
It is what it is, but I won't embrace it.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
[Yes, black bears are rare here and should be protected, but not when the bear is attacking a person. Under present law, shooting a black bear that is killing you is still a serious crime. No one should be forced to choose between death and prison over the actions of an animal, just like no one should be forced into extreme poverty in the same way.


We agree



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Er... I thought I answered that... except for number three, which I don't understand enough to comment on intelligently.

If the EPA is to be revamped, why not include all the necessary changes? Why do it piecemeal? I really don't care about bipartisan support on this one; I don't know many (four legged) animals that are members of either party. There are some issues where partisanship seems to matter, but this just ain't one of them.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

We agree


Annie, I think I'm gonna cry... well, close as I can get; rednecks don't have tear ducts. It's a mutation.




TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: Annee

We agree


Annie, I think I'm gonna cry... well, close as I can get; rednecks don't have tear ducts. It's a mutation.




TheRedneck


LOL




posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

Er... I thought I answered that... except for number three, which I don't understand enough to comment on intelligently.

If the EPA is to be revamped, why not include all the necessary changes? Why do it piecemeal? I really don't care about bipartisan support on this one; I don't know many (four legged) animals that are members of either party. There are some issues where partisanship seems to matter, but this just ain't one of them.

TheRedneck

My bad i was speaking in general terms but responding to you at the same time. You dd answer it.

It will take both parties to get these changes and there are way more then four. The four outlined are just the most contentious ones and may sink the whole lot. When they are compared to the overall scope of the bill they are not really necessary and without them much change would not be contested.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod
Yea, well thats why we don't lead countries I suppose.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I'm not sure why Trump supporters even bother to argue against Trump's stance on environmental issues. Just admit it and move on - Trump couldn't care less about these issues, other than when they get in the way of what he wants to do. Protecting our environment is near to dead-last on his list of things to accomplish.

Let's see.. he has reduced the size of national monuments, the actions on this current endangered species act, cuts NASA climate monitoring program, EPA changes rules on transparency, rollback on car emissions standards, is utterly against anything that suggests there is climate change (as the government starts changing the wording or removing government websites on climate change), proposed sweeping rollbacks and cuts for the climate and clean energy programs, loosened regulations on toxic air pollution, removes the 100 + year old law protecting birds (accidental bird death law), mining health study halted, climate advisory panel halted... and a whooole bunch more (Paris agreement, auctioning off 77 million acres off oil and gas leases, largest ever), etc. etc. etc.


He has done pretty much nil to protect the environment, but has cut funds, laws, removing protection from animals and land, all for the sake of $$$. But hey.. it's cool, it's all a myth that humans are harming the environment, right?



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: mikell

But squirrels are not endangered and neither are raccoons.


Oh Jesus...Don't try and speak to the trolls in the language of reality.

Try rather to emulate the drunk at the end of the bar raging about nonsense. He has more in common with the current Trumpite.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit


he has reduced the size of national monuments

We call that "stopping the land grabs." One does not need 1000 acres for a memorial.


the actions on this current endangered species act

Yep, so far it all sounds reasonable to me for reasons I have outlined above.


cuts NASA climate monitoring program

... which never should have been part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


EPA changes rules on transparency

The EPA that has been busy trying to control every molecule produced? Yeah, they need to focus more on pollution and less on stuff they have no business sticking their noses into.


rollback on car emissions standards

Got a link? I haven't heard anything about a rollback on emissions.


is utterly against anything that suggests there is climate change (as the government starts changing the wording or removing government websites on climate change)

Good! I don't want a carbon tax. Some people can't seem to understand that, so let me repeat it: I don't want a carbon tax.


proposed sweeping rollbacks and cuts for the climate and clean energy programs

Many of the clean energy programs that existed are not feasible... not throwing money down a black hole is a good thing.


loosened regulations on toxic air pollution

Again, got a link? I haven't heard a word about that (and might I mention, carbon dioxide is not toxic).


removes the 100 + year old law protecting birds (accidental bird death law)

Yeah, looked that one up... Obama put that into effect in the last weeks of his term, knowing it would probably be overridden. It's nothing more than a policy that tried to put energy companies out of business. Purposeful or even negligent killing of migratory birds is still illegal.


mining health study halted

Not sure about the details on this one.


climate advisory panel halted

Good. If you didn't catch it before let me say it again: I don't want a carbon tax.


... and a whooole bunch more (Paris agreement, auctioning off 77 million acres off oil and gas leases, largest ever), etc. etc. etc.

The Paris Accord was a charity that didn't do anything except transfer money from us to other countries.

Why is the government holding oil and gas leases? Releasing them not only brought in more money to the government, but it also helps us become energy independent instead of being dependent on the Middle East. It also drops the demand globally for energy and drops prices, making it harder on Russia.

Many of these things are stuff Obama signed into being by Executive Order just before he left office... like a good politician! He took credit (or blame depending on how closely one pays attention) while the undesirable consequences were supposed to hit the next administration. Others are bad policies that were not only costing the government crazy amounts of money, but which also were responsible for the painfully slow economic recovery. People who keep posting garbage like you did need to stop and try to think... people do not want to live in a society where the government decides if they get to eat this week or not. People want opportunity and freedom.

Sounds to me like you're just someone else who just doesn't like Donald Trump.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


It will take both parties to get these changes and there are way more then four. The four outlined are just the most contentious ones and may sink the whole lot. When they are compared to the overall scope of the bill they are not really necessary and without them much change would not be contested.

Come on now... be honest. No matter what provisions were included, some of them would have been made controversial. That's just the way things work. Take those four items out and four more will become the subject of controversy by morning.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly and in previous post to you i noted that tactic of putting in contentious points in a bill that can be used to draw attention and drive the debate then remove them at the right time in order for the rest of the bill to pass but as i noted this admin has failed to go down that road on several other bills that were just completely thrown by the wayside at the last minute.

It would be great if we could avoid extra riders on this bill but you know how they throw in more crap to garner votes from hold outs.

I they would remove those four points and vote on the overhaul without riders it will pass and the system would much smoother than before. We should not take too big of a bit in one swoop. Patients and clear foresight and will carry us to a better existence. Too much change all at once can shock the system. It is important to spend our spare time keeping systems in check and levels operationally full. The reason is because damage to the system is always waiting around the corner.




top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join