Trump administration wants to roll back the Endangered Species Act

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And if that coral reef had resources that would be of great economic impact on an industrial scale (via mining/drilling) vs. commercial (via tourism) I would support with no regret the process which would yield greatest economic benefit. I have not changed my position on oil drilling off the coast, the rigs would be far enough away to maintain the sanctity of the beaches.

I love nature up until it gets in the way of economic expansion.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: CB328
Because a handful of #ing turtles that are only endangered because they are the only one with a certain shade of brown on the continent, or a specific shape of shell. Or a bird that has certain feathers and dances. I believe we should limit the endangered species back into endangered family act.

If there are still going to be turtles, than why hold up a multi billion dollar infrastructure project producing thousands of jobs with a huge economic benefit over one type of brown?? Just move all the turtles they find furing construction to zoos or another part of the state. Animals can #ing adapt. They can go somewhere else. Let people like PETA simply volunteer to relocate as many of the animal they are worried about to some sanctuary or another forest/lake.

How is that for a compromise???

I just think if owls in general are still all over the world, it does not seem reasonable if one that only lives in a place would deprive our people of the rewards of industry and finance.

The arrogance of man -- again.

Yeah, why bother.

This article is from 10 years ago

"Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago.Aug 17, 2010

m.huffpost.com...

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And if that coral reef had resources that would be of great economic impact on an industrial scale (via mining/drilling) vs. commercial (via tourism) I would support with no regret the process which would yield greatest economic benefit. I have not changed my position on oil drilling off the coast, the rigs would be far enough away to maintain the sanctity of the beaches.

I love nature up until it gets in the way of economic expansion.

It's about the money.

Isn't capitalism grand.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Are we trying for animals' right to freedom now? You do realize there's a reason they are called 'animals'?

TheRedneck

Humans are animals.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry

which would yield greatest economic benefit.

To who?

How many jobs are created from having hundreds of miles of pristine beach coasts versus se 800 oil drilling platforms?

Because its not like the actual profit side of that scene does F all for anybody besides our elite masters.

Corporatist indoctrination has you hook line sinker thru the mouth across the guts and out the butt pipe, if I'm to take seriously a lot of this kind of stuff.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Are we trying for animals' right to freedom now? You do realize there's a reason they are called 'animals'?

TheRedneck

Mostly just rocking the boat, as its important we're not all blissfully ignorant on things where the things we most such acknowledge people seems to self-delude themselves the most about.

a reply to: Annee

OK, let me try again... every species on the planet that has a benefit to mankind has prospered... dogs, for being protector, cats for being companions, the ones I mentioned for being edible, even elephants for being entertaining. None of those animals which have value to humans have become endangered. They have, in fact, prospered.

I am saying let's find a way to make the endangered species valuable to humans, so humans will want to protect them. What we do now is to prevent anyone from having any use for the endangered animals, and threaten them if they do. In many cases, like the snail darter and the spotted barn owl, we actually harm people over the animals and make the animals hated.

Every year, hunters take out a YUGE number of deer from the place i live in. Yet, there are more deer here now than when Columbus ran aground. How does that work? We commercialized them... you can hunt a certain number of deer during a certain time of the year, and poaching is despised by almost all hunters. The hunters get the deer they harvest (their 'profit') and the state uses the money from the licenses to improve the deer's habitat. Everyone is happy.

I used to have a deer that ate apples out of a tree in my front yard every year. I refused to let anyone harm that deer while she was eating, because I liked watching her. Do you think I would have done so if having her here threatened ownership of my property? I would have shot her on sight and hidden the body1 As it is today, if I see a minnow swimming in a puddle in a field, I poison it on sight, because if it is a snail darter, it threatens me. It has a negative value.

That is NOT how you protect animals! That is how you make them hated!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Annee

Humans are animals.

So you want to what? Ban eating animals? We ban eating humans, right? Is there a difference?

TheRedneck

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Understand that when you rock a boat that hard, it tends to sink...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I am saying let's find a way to make the endangered species valuable to humans, so humans will want to protect them.

Its not that simple. Whereas being good stewards, respecting the nature we came from, its importance on the food chains, appreciating the beauty of the world ought to be "valuable".

Too much Gold Fever, too few actually getting a real taste of it, and too many wannabes rationalizing others bad behavior just so they can "live" vicariously thru it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Understand that when you rock a boat that hard, it tends to sink...

TheRedneck

Crap thats the joke version i made in a discussion, my original avatar version seems to be missing...

a reply to: CB328

I would wait till I heard about it from a credible source,using CNN a known liar as proof makes your post look like a rant

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Its not that simple. Whereas being good stewards, respecting the nature we came from, its importance on the food chains, appreciating the beauty of the world ought to be "valuable".

Having your home, your livelihood, stripped away over a piece of bait.... having the cost of a home double because a barn owl has spots... those are negatives that offset that value. Stop making animals outrageously expensive to save, and you'll have plenty of people happy to let them live... just because, as you say, their beauty is valuable in itself.

But no one is going to give up their life over a piece of bait willingly.

TheRedneck

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Pretty sociopathic view.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Humans are animals.

So you want to what? Ban eating animals? We ban eating humans, right? Is there a difference?

TheRedneck

I am not a vegetarian.

a reply to: CB328

What a crock!! Their own data puts the lie to the headline.

From your link:

But last week, President Trump's Interior Department proposed big changes to the ESA, part of the administration's sweeping rollback of what some view as burdensome regulatory red tape. The changes could end the practice of automatically providing future "threatened" species with the same protections endangered species receive, with new protections for threatened plants and animals instead determined by "the species' individual conservation needs."[

In simpler terms, no, he is NOT talking about ending the ESA, but about common sense rules, that would determine by species need the best plan. Much more sensible than some "one size fits all" BS, like we have now.

CNN really needs to work on headlines that fit the data they share.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: 3n19m470


Let me know when America starts embracing Tiny Homes and allows vegetable growing in front yards.

The biggest threat to wild animals is loss of habitat.

Tiny homes are fine for people, but not for animals, right?

That's some standard....

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
And if that coral reef had resources that would be of great economic impact on an industrial scale (via mining/drilling) vs. commercial (via tourism) I would support with no regret the process which would yield greatest economic benefit. I have not changed my position on oil drilling off the coast, the rigs would be far enough away to maintain the sanctity of the beaches.

I love nature up until it gets in the way of economic expansion.

It's about the money.

Isn't capitalism grand.

Idiots like worldstar don't seem to grasp the simple unavoidable fact that, if we lose the ocean ecosystem, we will lose civilization as we know it. So he can have his fist full of dollars, but won't have anywhere to spend it as the world WILL burn all around him. 2 major civilization ending issues need to be addressed immediately (but won't be), shark finning for Asian markets.....and the destruction of bees, likely caused by Monsanto and friends. Sounds dramatic, untill the moment of comprehension.....

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Obviously you haven't figured out wild animals don't have a fridge or grocery stores for their needs, they need some amount of foraging space

a reply to: Artlogic

Some people have no cognitive ability to see a bigger picture, beyond their back yard, 5 minutes ahead..etc
No simple understanding of how the cycle works, and no desire to learn.