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: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Annee

let's not lose focus here with a another example of government failure.

It is obvious in the post that ther are holding someone accountable for failure to plan properly.

So rule one can be do not put rino's in the sea.



Eta after reading some articles it seems that 11 relocated rinos is not the extent of the relocation projects but is just one instance out of many relocation's in the last couple years.


The point is - - they could not stay in their own habitat.




posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

What habitat ?

For thousands of years migratory patterns of animals was ever changing.

Due to a variety of factors including environmental.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No

The point is that were moved to an incompatible habitat.

Hence them holding the decision maker accountable.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The only thing the endangered species act is.

The animal version instead of indian reservations.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Annee

No

The point is that were moved to an incompatible habitat.

Hence them holding the decision maker accountable.


NO!

Back up.

Why did they need to be moved in the first place?

edit on 29-7-2018 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
The only thing the endangered species act is.

The animal version instead of indian reservations.


Do animals have the choice to go out in the world and make a home/living off the "reservation"?



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Talking about welfare programs?



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Annee

No

The point is that were moved to an incompatible habitat.

Hence them holding the decision maker accountable.


NO!

Back up.

Why did they need to be moved in the first place?


Because they have a re population program that is working.

You post one instance of failure with no context of the vast successes of WINNING.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Annee

Talking about welfare programs?


Do the animals have a choice?



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yeah they do.

Bout the only creature that does.

To repeat.

If YALL cared.

Return the land yall stole from the animals since it was their natural habitat in the beginning.

Deurbanize, and Desuburbannized.

Having a law that says a person can't do X is useless.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Annee

No

The point is that were moved to an incompatible habitat.

Hence them holding the decision maker accountable.


NO!

Back up.

Why did they need to be moved in the first place?


Because they have a re population program that is working.

You post one instance of failure with no context of the vast successes of WINNING.



Is one instance ever just one instance?

What happened to their original habitat?

Of course there is much success in Wild Life Preservation. That is not my point.

Loss of habitat is a primary reason for animal extinction.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


Theodore Roosevelt was also pleased in 1903, when as President, he went to Yellowstone for a dedication ceremony. Here he is. This was his third visit. Roosevelt saw a thousand antelope, plentiful cougar, mountain sheep, deer, coyote and many thousands of elk. He wrote at that time, “Our people should see to it that this rich heritage is preserved for their children and their children’s children forever, with its majestic beauty all unmarred.”

But in fact, Yellowstone was not preserved. On the contrary, it was altered beyond repair in a matter of years. By 1934, the Park Service acknowledged that whitetail deer, cougar, lynx, wolf, and possibly wolverine and fisher are gone from the Yellowstone.

What they didn’t say was that the Park Service was solely responsible for the disappearances. Park rangers had been shooting the animals for decades, even though that was illegal since the Lacey Act of 1894. But they thought they knew best. They thought their environmental concerns trumped any mere law.

What actually happened at Yellowstone is a cascade of ego and error, but to understand it, we have to go back to the 1890s. Back then, it was believed that elk were becoming extinct, so these animals were fed and encouraged. Over the next few years, the number of elk in the park exploded. Here you can see them feeding them hand to hand.

Roosevelt had seen a few thousand animals on his visit, and he’d noticed that the elk were more numerous than in his previous visit. Nine years later, in 1912, there were 30,000 elk in Yellowstone. By 1914, there were 35,000.

Things were going very well. Rainbow trout had also been introduced, and although they crowded out the native cutthroats, nobody really worried. Fishing was great. Bears were increasing in numbers, and moose and bison as well.

By 1915, Roosevelt realized the elk had become a problem, and he urged scientific management, which meant culling. His advice was ignored. Instead, the Park Service did everything they could to increase the number of elk. The results were predictable. Antelope and deer began to decline. Overgrazing changed the flora. Aspen and willows were being eaten at a furious rate and did not regenerate. Large animals and small began to disappear from the park.

In an effort to stem the loss, the park rangers began to kill predators, which they did without public knowledge. They eliminated the wolf and the cougar, and they were well on their way to getting rid of the coyote. Then a national scandal broke out. New studies showed that it wasn’t predators that were killing the other animals. It was overgrazing from too many elk. The management policy of killing predators therefore had only made things worse.

Actually, the elk had so decimated the aspen that now, where formerly they were plentiful, now they’re quite rare. Without the aspen, the beaver, which use these trees to make dams, began to disappear from the park. Beaver were essential to the water management of Yellowstone, and without dams, the meadows dried hard in summer and still more animals vanished.

The situation worsened further. It became increasingly inconvenient that all the predators had been killed off by 1930, so in the 1960s, there was a sigh of relief when new sightings by rangers suggested that wolves were returning. Of course, there were rumors all during that time, persistent rumors that the rangers were trucking them in. But in any case, the wolves vanished soon afterward. They needed to eat beaver and other small rodents, and the beaver had gone.

Pretty soon, the Park Service initiated a PR campaign to prove that excessive elk were not responsible for the problems in the park, even though they were. The campaign went on for about a decade, during which time the bighorn sheep virtually disappeared.

Now, we’re in the 1970s, and bears were recognized as a growing problem. They used to be considered fun-loving creatures, and their close association with human beings was encouraged in the park. Here’re people coming to watch bear feedings. There’s a show at a certain hour of the day. And here’s one of my favorites. Setting the table for bears at Lake Camp in Yellowstone Park. You see they’re very well behaved.

But that didn’t actually continue—the good behavior, I mean. There were more bears, and certainly there were many more lawyers, and thus the much-increased threat of litigation, so the rangers moved the grizzlies out. The grizzlies promptly became endangered. Their formerly growing numbers shrank. The Park Service refused to let scientists study them, but once they were declared endangered, the scientists could go back in again.

And by now, we’re about ready to reap the rewards of our 40-year policy of fire suppression, Smokey the Bear and all that. The Indians used to burn forests regularly, and lightning causes natural fires every year. But when these are suppressed, branches fall from the trees to the ground and accumulate over the years to make a dense groundcover such that when there’s a fire, it is a very low, very hot fire that sterilizes the soil. In 1988, Yellowstone burned, and all 1.2 million acres were scorched, and 800,000 acres, one third of the park, burned.

Then having killed the wolves, having tried to sneak them back in, they officially brought the wolves back. And now the local ranchers screamed. The newer reports suggested the wolves seemed to be eating enough of the elk that slowly, the ecology of the park was being restored. Or so it is claimed. It’s been claimed before. And on and on.

As the story unfolds, it becomes increasingly impossible to overlook the cold truth that when it comes to managing 2.2 million acres of wilderness, nobody since the Indians has the faintest idea how to do it. And nobody asked the Indians, because the Indians managed the land very aggressively, very intrusively. The Indians started fires regularly. They burned trees and grasses. They hunted the large animals, elk and moose, to the edge of extinction. White men refused to do that, and made things worse. www.independent.org...





posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Annee

Yeah they do.

Bout the only creature that does.

To repeat.

If YALL cared.

Return the land yall stole from the animals since it was their natural habitat in the beginning.

Deurbanize, and Desuburbannized.

Having a law that says a person can't do X is useless.


Did you just contradict yourself?



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yellowstone is the perfect example of this idiocy.

A national park that can blow at any time.

Preservation!



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No.

People that are snipping about Trump and the ESA are contradicting themselves.

They don't want to return the land that was stolen from the animals.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I am all for protecting species... until it gets out of hand.

It's out of hand.

Humpback whales existed for centuries with the Eskimos hunting them. No problem. Then the commercial fishermen start in and almost wiped them out. That's a bad thing. I was glad to see some protection, but of course that protection meant two things: it didn't affect them when they swam outside US protection, and the Eskimos went hungry. Anyone remember the 7 'P's?

The spotted owl is no different than a barn owl with one exception... they have spots. But, because of a spotted barn owl, lumber prices have quadrupled in a few short years. Sorry... that kind of crap makes me want to assist them in their bid for extinction.

The problem is, we have bureaucratic idiots trying to save something they don't even understand, in the process not only getting rid of some poaching, but also in the process stopping people from living while allowing some of the poaching to get through. Why? Because they are, as I said, idiots.

Are cows endangered? Pigs? Chickens? No, because they have value... we gave them value and now there are millions of them, of several specials of each. You want to save the penguins? Fine. Give them value... set up a natural wildlife zoo in the protected habitat and charge people to see them. Same with lions, giraffes, tigers... set up an outdoor wildlife park and charge admission... heck, overstock it and charge hunters for taking an animal. You'll see the species rebound in no time.

What you don't do is make the animals worthless to people. When you do that, you lose any chance of people wanting to save them... at least people who can do more than tie themselves to a tree in front of a carnivore. What you do if you want to get rid of the species is make it a negative value... as in some damn piece of bait that exists apparently for the sole purpose of letting government take land from farmers so the farmers go hungry while the rest of us don''t have enough food either. That is, in a word, stoopid.

Good for Trump. Now, who wants to go spotted owl hunting?

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




What happened to their original habitat?


If by their you are meaning the rinos that died after transport..there original habitat became an area where numbers were brought back to good levels.

If you mean rinos habitat in general there is a long list or reasons for the decreasing numbers. There is no single answer but as far as what we as humans can do to combat disappearing species then from that long list we can put shooting them at the top as a measure we can take to repopulate them. Because the other reasons are often nature and we do not have enough say in what she does.



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Since when did rinos live in 'Murica other than the political kind?



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Does the endangered species act include Liberals?



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Yeah.

They can never return to the wild.

The state has become their care taker.




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join