Trump administration wants to roll back the Endangered Species Act

a reply to: howtonhawky

you speak of selective conservatism

And what other kind is there? The ESA selectively targets species. The difference is once they are targeted, they are placed so far above human needs that everyone else wants to kill them.

You just can't seem to keep your facts straight...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Perhaps the disconnect we are having here is that the topic is endangered species act and not the conservation act.

Some of this is a good thing.

There is an example of some dams that are scheduled to be demolished in California where they are having terrible droughts and wildfires right now.

The reason those dams are due to be demolished is because some enviro-types found salmon remains up above those dams, and they used just those to argue that Coho salmon were being endangered because the dams prevented them from reaching their spawning grounds. So, the dams got put on the chopping block, dams that provided water to lots and lots of farmers who were farming sensitively because they knew their ground was environmentally delicate and they wanted to preserve it as much as anyone else did.

Want to know where the salmon came from? Below the dams. Some native Americans caught them and carried above the dams to clean for relatives up there. The salmon never took themselves that far to begin with. It was always a native practice. They admitted as much, but it was too late.

Forces were moving, Warren Buffet was getting money to demolish those dams and restore the "natural" watershed all on the strength of the endangered salmon who were never, ever there.

So now, those farmers were likely be put out of business, we'll lose their produce nationwide, and there still won't be Coho salmon in those watersheds. But Warren Buffet will get his money.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

you speak of selective conservatism

And what other kind is there? The ESA selectively targets species. The difference is once they are targeted, they are placed so far above human needs that everyone else wants to kill them.

You just can't seem to keep your facts straight...

TheRedneck

lol

You just have to include the last line?

Out of place and taking away from a legit conversation we could be having.

Ok man what facts are not straight? Let us address that then maybe we can get back to the op.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Perhaps the disconnect we are having here is that the topic is endangered species act and not the conservation act.

Some of this is a good thing.

There is an example of some dams that are scheduled to be demolished in California where they are having terrible droughts and wildfires right now.

The reason those dams are due to be demolished is because some enviro-types found salmon remains up above those dams, and they used just those to argue that Coho salmon were being endangered because the dams prevented them from reaching their spawning grounds. So, the dams got put on the chopping block, dams that provided water to lots and lots of farmers who were farming sensitively because they knew their ground was environmentally delicate and they wanted to preserve it as much as anyone else did.

Want to know where the salmon came from? Below the dams. Some native Americans caught them and carried above the dams to clean for relatives up there. The salmon never took themselves that far to begin with. It was always a native practice. They admitted as much, but it was too late.

Forces were moving, Warren Buffet was getting money to demolish those dams and restore the "natural" watershed all on the strength of the endangered salmon who were never, ever there.

So now, those farmers were likely be put out of business, we'll lose their produce nationwide, and there still won't be Coho salmon in those watersheds. But Warren Buffet will get his money.

Great specific story bro.

wa wa wa

I say that cause we do not need dams all over the place.

Is there no other alternative to get water to the area?

Do wells work there?

I am not moved by the dam story cause something yugely bigger is causing drought problems there.

Why not use some of the farming land to dig a pond to collect water there?

How much revenue from the water was givin back to the people from those dams?

I think it used to rain much in cali before the weed.


www.kqed.org...

Federal energy regulators are considering a plan that would open hundreds of miles of the Klamath to the potential of the largest river restoration in U.S. history.

Three of the dams are on the California side of the river. The lowest of these is Iron Gate Dam, near Hornbrook, in Siskiyou County, which has trapped silty sand, clay and rocks behind its walls. Reservoirs behind multiple dams slow water down and heat it up into a toxic algae breeding ground.

and finally the truth here....

But Congress sat on the deal for five years, and it fizzled in Washington. Now, dam removal is moving forward again, without Congress this time, thanks to an agreement signed in April at the mouth of the Klamath.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

you speak of selective conservatism

And what other kind is there? The ESA selectively targets species. The difference is once they are targeted, they are placed so far above human needs that everyone else wants to kill them.

You just can't seem to keep your facts straight...

TheRedneck

Explain what the human needs are in this case.

a reply to: howtonhawky

OK, when you can't afford your produce because it's all coming in from other countries, this is part of why.

California didn't bloom and grow things without modern water control.

But I guess this solves the need for cheap illegal farm labor, so don't come telling me that my produce will be too expensive if we don't let the illegals come pick. There won't be produce to pick.

a reply to: ketsuko

i donno know?

Is it even legal to irrigate from a river in California?

Here in texas you can as long as your in a flood plain of the river.

You may be over reacting to the dam story.

Would you want the federal government to step in and stop the agreement?

Again i do not see the dams as a major role in the drought California is having but i could be missing something and i am open anytime to new info and better understanding of the specifics in such cases.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Perhaps the disconnect we are having here is that the topic is endangered species act and not the conservation act.

Some of this is a good thing.

There is an example of some dams that are scheduled to be demolished in California where they are having terrible droughts and wildfires right now.

The reason those dams are due to be demolished is because some enviro-types found salmon remains up above those dams, and they used just those to argue that Coho salmon were being endangered because the dams prevented them from reaching their spawning grounds. So, the dams got put on the chopping block, dams that provided water to lots and lots of farmers who were farming sensitively because they knew their ground was environmentally delicate and they wanted to preserve it as much as anyone else did.

Want to know where the salmon came from? Below the dams. Some native Americans caught them and carried above the dams to clean for relatives up there. The salmon never took themselves that far to begin with. It was always a native practice. They admitted as much, but it was too late.

Forces were moving, Warren Buffet was getting money to demolish those dams and restore the "natural" watershed all on the strength of the endangered salmon who were never, ever there.

So now, those farmers were likely be put out of business, we'll lose their produce nationwide, and there still won't be Coho salmon in those watersheds. But Warren Buffet will get his money.

Do you have any fact based (non partisan) links to this information?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

my ex-hubby's grandma says: "Animals were put here by God to serve man". Is that what you think?

Yes, Annee, it is what I believe.

There's more to it than that, though. If one believes that the other species are here to serve man, as a gift from God, does it not follow that it would be wrong to destroy that gift? There is a difference between using other animals and abusing other animals. It is just as wrong to destroy a species as it is to let that species harm us.

I'm going back to the deer example. Do you realize how easy it would be to wipe the white-tail deer from existence? We could do it. The result would be, in my opinion, a catastrophe. On the other hand, as you insinuate, we have changed the ecology by decreasing the number of wolves, coyotes, and cougars. That was necessary for our survival, but now we have an obligation to balance that by becoming deer predators ourselves. If a hunter shoots a deer and then eats it, the hunter is filling the role of the species we decreased the number of, and is maintaining balance. As long as we take some care to maintain balance, hunting deer is beneficial to the deer as a species. It prevents them from becoming so populous they destroy their own habitat.

Ever seen deer when that happens? They grow weak and even malformed in extreme cases, and die of starvation and disease in agony. The few that survive are damaged and their offspring can be physically damaged... if they become sterile, the deer in that area die off. That is not a good solution, and is itself an abomination toward nature, but many people would happily force it to happen through their willful ignorance of nature.

Nature is not Bambi and Thumper frolicking around in a pretty glade... nature is a circle of life and death, growth and rot, with each death being life to something else. It's all in balance. I see myself as being responsible for maintaining that balance when something happens to throw it off, and that can mean killing some animals for the benefit of the species. The real disgrace is when laws become so strict that we no longer have the ability to maintain that balance. And that is what the ESA has become.

I repeat, good for Trump. We needed some more common sense and the ability to act when action is needed.

TheRedneck

I'd say you are "Old School" (not meant as an insult).

I am old - 72 - - but, completely free in my thinking - - not bound by traditions or religious thinking (I am atheist).

I, of course, do not believe God put non-human animals on earth for man's use. I do believe all animals evolved in their environments and that man succeeded in being the species that evolved beyond the rest - - at least in some ways.

We do know from studies that non-human animals have their own language and some make/use tools for various uses (although still primitive). We are still learning about their communications.

What man has is written language. Man evolves faster by using knowledge that was written down by those who came before his current time . Although there are still primitive tribes that live off the land and do not have a written language.

Do you think deforestation and illegal gold mining - - that destroys the habitat and clean water of primitive tribes is the correct thing to do?

Is modern man correct in forcing these primitive people into the modern world? Or should their way of life be protected?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ketsuko

i donno know?

Is it even legal to irrigate from a river in California?

Here in texas you can as long as your in a flood plain of the river.

You may be over reacting to the dam story.

Would you want the federal government to step in and stop the agreement?

Again i do not see the dams as a major role in the drought California is having but i could be missing something and i am open anytime to new info and better understanding of the specifics in such cases.

You could spend years — as they have — trying to understand ‘water rights’ in California...suffice to say: if you can “get your straw in”, it’s all good. At any rate, no, that nonsense she typed about the dams and any drought causality is that — nonosense.

Plus, the dams that are up for removal are old, like real old. They’re not and have yet to demolish a dam for the sole purpose of salmon restoration. The Army Corps of Engineers have said those dams have outlived there usefulness and no longer serve as a reliable flood control agent.

Hell, don’t mind the facts or common sense of a situation just type something about a liberal, leftist, enviro, etc. and you’ll be on the ‘right side’ of any debate/argument/discussion. Ugh.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Ok man what facts are not straight? Let us address that then maybe we can get back to the op.

We can start with the fact that every conservation effort has to be targeted to a specific species. Every animal is different; you treat a cougar like you do a giraffe and it's going to die.

I've been talking about the OP this whole time. The ESA was too strict and inflexible. It needs desperately to be reworked, to a greater degree than Trump did. I'm just happy to get something.

TheRedneck

a reply to: CB328

From your source:

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."

And if implemented, the proposed changes would also allow officials to consider the economic impact of protecting a species when enforcing the ESA.

*internet gasp!*

Oh my no they didn't--you mean to tell me that they would give separate protections for separate classifications, AND use objective determinations for applied protections based on the individual need of the species? And they don't want to automatically bankrupt people in the process of saving, say, a non-native tiny fish at the delta of a major water source for a Cali valley that provides massive amounts of our nation's and the world's produce?

Sheesh, how irresponsible. They should be stopped immediately.

No...no they shouldn't. They sound like perfectly reasonable changes to me.

I know, I know--I must want all flora and fauna to die and I'm a terrible human being.

a reply to: Annee

We do know from studies that non-human animals have their own language and some make/use tools for various uses (although still primitive). We are still learning about their communications.

Some non-human animals have a primitive language. Dolphins stand out in my mind, as do many primates and possibly whales. Dogs and cats could be considered to have a type of language as well, even more primitive, but there. My dog uses different barks for different situations, and I have noticed that causes other dogs to respond differently.

On the other hand, don't tell me earthworms are chatting away underground. It depends on the species.

I think we all are a bit hypocritical when we try to justify eating animals on the basis of their intelligence. As someone who has lived their entire life around farm animals, let me tell you swine are extremely intelligent! And yet, the poor things had the misfortune to be made of sausage, pork, bacon, and ham. Of course, that little misfortune has kept them far, far from the endangered species list.

Do you think deforestation and illegal gold mining - - that destroys the habitat and clean water of primitive tribes is the correct thing to do?

Is modern man correct in forcing these primitive people into the modern world? Or should their way of life be protected?

That's not an issue concerning animals... these are people we're talking about. They may not speak our language or act like us, but they are human and as such have the right to self-determination. It's their jungle; let them have it.

Ironically, we allow the deforestation you mention, displacing human cultures and destroying them in most cases, but let someone see a damn barn owl with spots and we'd stop the planet for it! That's the real issue for me. I have a heck of a lot of sympathy for people who are suddenly faced with all this fancy technology and machinery deciding to just come in and destroy everything there for profit, but none... zero, zip, zilch... for someone crying to me about a spotted owl and wanting to harm an entire nation because the things happen to like trees we need.

So no, modern man is as much out of line for trying to force tribes into modern society against their will as the idiotic Puritans were when they decided that God had given them America if they would just kill off the savages... who happened to be a part of my ancestors.

And I still want to exterminate every spotted owl I see.

I'm going to throw another example in here... I used to hunt in the range of a black bear, which is an endangered species here. So I carried a bear gun (.444 Marlin). Anyone wants to tell me I can't shoot something if it decides to attack me will find themselves sharing its fate. No, I didn't shoot the bear; it never bothered me. I had it in the sights once, but it turned out to be a false alarm. But had I felt threatened... bear go dead. Period. Government and crybaby tree-huggers be damned. They might put me in jail, but I swear there will be more serious charges than shooting an endangered species when that happens.

TheRedneck

a reply to: CB328

Why are you guys always so misinformed on all things? It's really tiresome. This isn't new to the trump administration. This act has been altered dozens of times. It's one constant through all administrations. No one is trying to make animals go extinct. It's bad business for everyone. Then you have the idiots talking about african lions or tigers. We don't have either here in the US so our laws don't pertain to african lions or tigers. Just look at polar bears, we keep saying they're going extinct, but they're not. In fact, their populations are increasing among a number of their subspecies. So much so, that they've seen a big rise in attacks by polar bears. But we must conserve!!!!!!!!! Polar bears are dying!!!!!

It's like a circle jerk of misinformation.

Excellent idea...to a limit. There are groups using the ESA to gain access to US Military facilities. Example the "Red Cockade Woodpecker'. They used them to close many training area. Or the "Pygmy Owl", they are everywhere, if you really know where to look. Or a species of humming bird that like the Agave plant. A couple of groups use that particular to gain access to limited access area is southern Arizona. Or the rancher that brought salamanders from their other family owned ranch in New Mexico for fish bait. They allowed a group onto their Arizona ranch, who promptly made claims about an endangered species...so the AZ ranch can no longer use their cattle ponds to water their own cattle. Or another rancher who brought minnows as fish bait, and a group claimed they were also and endangered species, so they have to fence off their cattle ponds. THey have to pump water for their cattle and are not allowed to keep the 'new' tanks with water!
All ESA...are they communists or just common trash liberals? I lean toward the former...

a reply to: vonclod
well sociopaths rule the world. Most rulers since the beginning of time have been just that. How does that make you feel?
If you want civilization, it requires psycho's taking orders from other psycho's who know how to manage people like cattle to make it happen.

This is how it was in the beginning, and so it shall be until the end. This is how we will always exist as humans, cursed by our own wickedness. Embrace it!

Boy, there sure have been a bunch of PC liberals up here lately...or is it just one or two with different 'names'. Look at some of the wording and grammar. I am starting to lean toward a few socialists/communists...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

Ok man what facts are not straight? Let us address that then maybe we can get back to the op.

We can start with the fact that every conservation effort has to be targeted to a specific species. Every animal is different; you treat a cougar like you do a giraffe and it's going to die.

I've been talking about the OP this whole time. The ESA was too strict and inflexible. It needs desperately to be reworked, to a greater degree than Trump did. I'm just happy to get something.

TheRedneck

We are back on the same page again.

I too have been tryin to talk about the "rollback".

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

From what i read out of some where around a hundred changes purposed only 4 seemed to ruffle feathers.

I do not think allowing a monetary value to be part of the conversation is a good thing and if you add that to the fact it could cause many to balk on voting for the bill it might be wise to just leave out a couple of the purposed changes cause it looks like the rest should be bipartizen to the extent that is not extinct itself.

To me that is a decent tactic to throw in a wrench and remove it at the last minute but lately the law makers have lost that tactic and instead just attach riders that cause even more contention.

Anyone wanna try to guess how many riders this will get?

a reply to: daveinats

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

originally posted by: daveinats
Excellent idea...to a limit. There are groups using the ESA to gain access to US Military facilities. Example the "Red Cockade Woodpecker'. They used them to close many training area. Or the "Pygmy Owl", they are everywhere, if you really know where to look. Or a species of humming bird that like the Agave plant. A couple of groups use that particular to gain access to limited access area is southern Arizona. Or the rancher that brought salamanders from their other family owned ranch in New Mexico for fish bait. They allowed a group onto their Arizona ranch, who promptly made claims about an endangered species...so the AZ ranch can no longer use their cattle ponds to water their own cattle. Or another rancher who brought minnows as fish bait, and a group claimed they were also and endangered species, so they have to fence off their cattle ponds. THey have to pump water for their cattle and are not allowed to keep the 'new' tanks with water!
All ESA...are they communists or just common trash liberals? I lean toward the former...

These are examples that should be addressed and what gives conservationism a bad name.

I doubt any changes purposed will deal with such.

I would love to see a better system in place where people can air their grievances on such without getting bogged down in the court system for years to get to the bottom of issues. They use the threat of getting tied up in court to throw their weight around.

I purpose a local council or something that would have the power to deal between petty stuff and the public but not on the much larger issues so much.