PDA

View Full Version : Senate to Consider Extreme Changes to Endangered Species Act


lawyerlee
03-09-2006, 05:53 PM
Is yet another attack on science on its way? :(

Senate Urged to Safeguard Species Act (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/03/08/national/w170259S53.DTL&type=printable)
San Francisco Chronicle

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, March 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, (AP) --

As a Senate committee prepares to take up revisions to the Endangered Species Act, nearly 6,000 biologists from around the country signed a letter Wednesday urging senators to preserve scientific protections in the landmark law.

The House passed an Endangered Species Act rewrite last year that many scientists and environmentalists viewed as extreme. Interest groups are lobbying to ensure that legislation expected soon from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be an improvement.

"Unfortunately, recent legislative proposals would critically weaken" the law's scientific foundation, said the letter organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The 5,738 signers included six National Medal of Science recipients.

"For species conservation to continue, it is imperative both that the scientific principles embodied in the act are maintained, and that the act is strengthened, fully implemented, and adequately funded."

The House bill, written by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., would require the government to compensate property owners if steps needed to protect species thwart development plans. It also would stop the government from designating "critical habitat" where development is limited.

Scientists are particularly concerned about how science is handled, including a provision that would give the interior secretary the job of determining what constitutes appropriate scientific data for decision-making under the law.


Hidden ties: Big environmental changes backed by big industry (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/mar/policy/pt_bigindustry.html)
Lobbyists and industry officials who once pushed for the president’s Healthy Forests legislation now collaborate with Rep. Pombo to alter the Endangered Species Act.
Environmental Science & Technology News

Since President Bush took office, Republicans have successfully pushed through major reforms that target regulations for power-plant emissions and the management of federal forests. During his 2004 campaign for reelection, the president praised his Healthy Forests initiative as “a good, common-sense policy.” This year, the Republican-led Congress is gearing up for yet another “common-sense” reform to a major piece of environmental legislation—the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Critics of these reforms charge that they are little more than giveaways to the affected industries and note that the changes enacted with the Healthy Forests legislation limit citizens’ ability to appeal logging sales on federal lands and emphasize cutting trees to prevent fires. However, the reformers point to support by “grassroots” groups as a sign that these changes are popular with citizens and not just industry.

ES&T has examined in detail one short-lived “grassroots” environmental organization that was based in Oregon—a state with vast forests and species-rich ecosystems. The leading figures in this group played a key role in passing President Bush’s Healthy Forests legislation and are now promoting changes to ESA. From dozens of interviews and reviews of thousands of pages of documents, ES&T has found clear evidence that this “grassroots” organization has clear ties to timber corporations—an industry likely to benefit financially from legislative reforms.

Sposa06
03-09-2006, 06:02 PM
You've got to be kidding me. These people really don't grasp extinction and nonrenewable sources, do they? :(

jnettie
03-09-2006, 08:36 PM
Good gravy! Between this and the SD Abortion thread...I'm getting really ANGRY with the government!

They just can't see beyond their wallets. :mad:

kris97
03-09-2006, 08:42 PM
You know what I don't get, of all the rights in the Constitution, why do certain members of the Administration consider property rights and the right to bear arms the only ones worth preserving? It's like their Bill of Rights has 2 and a half amendments.

lawyerlee
03-10-2006, 05:53 AM
You know what I don't get, of all the rights in the Constitution, why do certain members of the Administration consider property rights and the right to bear arms the only ones worth preserving? It's like their Bill of Rights has 2 and a half amendments.
I don't get it either. If that's the case I wish someone would tell my office b/c it sure would save us a lot of money in printing costs every time we print the volume of the statutes with the US and Kansas Constitutions in it. :p :(

mgrace
03-10-2006, 11:39 AM
What the hell?

hockeybrat
03-10-2006, 11:39 AM
You know, as angry as I get from hearing about this plus a slew of other legislation that might get passed, I am honestly not surprised. I don't think ANYTHING will surprise me about this administration.

They just don't care about anything other than the almighty dollar.:mad: :mad:

lawyergirl25
03-10-2006, 11:42 AM
I suspect the pendulum will be swinging back to the left in short order if they keep this up.

Sposa06
03-10-2006, 11:49 AM
It definitely will be! Republicans in Washington State are mad right now because they think that Democrats "took away" their issues during the legislative session that just ended. The Dems passed tax breaks for the farming and timber industries, tougher penalties for sex offenders and came up with solutions to disputes about unemployment insurance and water use. So now the GOP has its panties in a bunch.

There's an article here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002855630_legislature10m.html).

That was kind of a tangent - sorry!

greenbunny
03-10-2006, 12:09 PM
Let me guess: there's something endangered where somebody wants to drill. Any betters?

hockeybrat
03-10-2006, 12:11 PM
Let me guess: there's something endangered where somebody wants to drill. Any betters?

What is considered endangered in ANWR?

chefker
03-10-2006, 12:12 PM
Apparently 'sanctity of life' only applies to humans--because our species is all that matters, right--and not animals, eh? :mad:

greenbunny
03-10-2006, 12:14 PM
Apparently 'sanctity of life' only applies to humans--because our species is all that matters, right--and not animals, eh? :mad:

I believe several posters have said that their interpretation of the Bible states that animals are here for man's use, rather than to be appreciated in their own right. So I think your description is spot-on.

chefker
03-10-2006, 12:25 PM
their interpretation of the Bible states that animals are here for man's use, rather than to be appreciated in their own right.

To quote Henry Rollins, "I can't get behind that."
I just get a sick, sad feeling over that belief/interpretation, or whatever you want to call it. :(

jnettie
03-10-2006, 12:33 PM
Gee, I thought that the Bible says we're supposed to watch over the animals? That's how I understand it.

But, the Bible has nothing to do with American laws (or does it?).

I feel it's time to invoke Teddy Roosevelt. Wasn't it Teddy that started the National Park Service and wasn't he, oh, A REPUBLICAN?

lawyerlee
03-10-2006, 01:58 PM
I believe several posters have said that their interpretation of the Bible states that animals are here for man's use, rather than to be appreciated in their own right. So I think your description is spot-on.
That's exactly how my dad views things. He's a Republican, but he's not religious. He has told DH and I on more than one occassion that if something goes extinct, it isn't a big deal because it was "meant to be". He believes that humans have no responsibility to be kind to the Earth. Everything on Earth is here at our disposal, so we should use things up as we see fit. Riiight. :rolleyes: :(

chrisinluv
03-10-2006, 04:37 PM
I believe several posters have said that their interpretation of the Bible states that animals are here for man's use, rather than to be appreciated in their own right. So I think your description is spot-on.

Yeah, safaris would definitely not be as fun if we didn't have giraffes running around for our entertainment.

Myra
03-13-2006, 11:11 AM
What is considered endangered in ANWR?
I think the caribou is endangered.

emmjay
03-13-2006, 11:16 AM
I believe several posters have said that their interpretation of the Bible states that animals are here for man's use, rather than to be appreciated in their own right. So I think your description is spot-on.
That mentality makes me want to vomit.

ysolde
03-13-2006, 11:46 AM
I believe several posters have said that their interpretation of the Bible states that animals are here for man's use, rather than to be appreciated in their own right. So I think your description is spot-on.

I believe it's called "Dominion Theology" or something like that.