Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday July 31 2018, @07:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the honesty-is-becoming-endangered,-too dept.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries announced their proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act, ostensibly "to ensure clarity and consistency." They are asking for comments from the public by September 24. Comments can be made by mail or over a JavaScript-based Web site. All comments will be published on the Web site.

Here are alternate pages where the proposed rules may be read. These do not require JavaScript.

Business Insider; the Roseburg, Oregon News-Review (archive link for EU readers); Mother Nature Network; and Idaho Stateman have articles on the topic.

In related news, CBS News notes that "while the White House can act on its own, those changes could always be undone by future administrations" while reporting that members of Congress have prepared several bills which would revise the Endangered Species Act.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @12:38PM (43 children)

    It has significant potential implications for the natural environment.

    FTFY. Killing off a minnow that only lives in one stream on earth isn't much of a loss for the planet. Evolution had already proper fucked that minnow. Killing off all the catfish, now that would be a loss.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @01:32PM (31 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @01:32PM (#715173) Homepage Journal

    I believe we already covered this before [soylentnews.org]. I never did get answers to the questions I raised in my last post in that thread.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @02:27PM (30 children)

      I probably either got bored with the topic or had too many "foo posted a comment in reply to your comment" messages and just deleted them all. I'll answer today though.

      It's not about survival of the fittest, it's about being fit enough to survive your environment at all. If your species is so fragile that it can't endure the secondary effects of another species simply existing in the same area, you probably need to die off so that something more fit can come along and take your niche over.

      I'm not saying we should go around tearing up jack just because we can but neither should we be making herculean efforts to preserve a species unless, like tasty or otherwise useful animals, it benefits us in some way. There comes a point when you're helping a species that is clearly not suited to life on this planet survive at great expense to your own simply out of misplaced and useless guilt.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:22PM (29 children)

        by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:22PM (#715212) Homepage Journal

        I see what you're saying. What I was getting at in my last post in our discussion was that, never mind any herculean conservation efforts and never mind whether our mere existence threatens another species in the same area -- there are humans knowingly performing careless actions that they are fully aware will threaten various species -- such as dumping thousands of tons of plastic into the ocean. That would certainly need some effort (let's be honest, a bit of money) in the short term to change that behavior but I dispute that it would be "herculean". If the human act of dumping the plastic killed animals that do not "benefit us in some way*", according to your comments, any attempt to reverse this damage and prevent these deaths would be "playing god". What I still don't understand is why you feel humans can pretty much do what the hell they want and if that happens to kill off species not "of use" (presumably even deliberately killing them), it is not "playing god", but as soon as doing what the hell they want happens to help these species, it is "playing god". Why is only the destructive behavior ethically permitted?

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:42PM (28 children)

          Yeah, neither the jackasses fucking things up for everyone nor the "every species must be protected from our evil, evil selves" folks have properly functioning brains in their head.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:57PM (27 children)

            by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:57PM (#715239) Homepage Journal

            I'm not saying we should go around tearing up jack just because we can

            Yeah, neither the jackasses fucking things up for everyone

            I'm a little confused as I thought the right to be a total asshole was a key part of your moral philosophy, Mighty B.

            Does the right to assholery extend to everyone, no matter how much power they wield over others? To, for intance, the POTUS? If not, what about to an unelected tyrannical emperor?

            --
            If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:07PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:07PM (#715247)

              The right to be an asshole is important. That doesn't mean the rest of us have any duty to politely make no comment on said assholeishness. Call it out: "Dude, you're a goddamn fucking asshole, and I hate you. Please die in a fire yesterday."

              • (Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:00PM

                by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:00PM (#715278)

                Don't be an asshole yourself, and address people politely, so to raise your chances of getting what you request. For example:
                "Dear Sir, your behavior is being perceived as indicative that you are a goddamn fucking asshole, and inciting feeling of hate towards you. Would you be so kind as to promptly, yet painfully, expire in a fire, yesterday ?"

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:11PM (24 children)

              The right to be an asshole is vital but your right to swing your fist ends short of my nose. It's not a complex notion. Any child old enough to speak intelligibly should be able to grasp it.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:21PM (23 children)

                by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:21PM (#715259) Homepage Journal

                The problem with this simplistic view is it ignores the fact that many assholeric actions will lead to harm indirectly. Azuma gave a good example a while back of selling toothpaste containing radium. Even more indirectly, advertising the toothpaste or buying shares in the company that sells that toothpaste, or deregulating the market to allow it to be sold again, can all initiate chains of events resulting in deaths that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.

                --
                If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:04PM (6 children)

                  by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:04PM (#715282)

                  "fuck you, got mine"(TM)

                  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:32PM (1 child)

                    by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:32PM (#715302) Homepage Journal

                    If all else fails, perhaps this could become a SoylentNews T shirt slogan?

                    fuck you, got mine

                    or

                    fuck you, want yours

                    depending on your affiliation. Or one slogan on the front, the other on the back. Reversible?

                    Hey, why stop at that? Baseball caps. MNNGA. Making News For Nerds Great Again!

                    --
                    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:26PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:26PM (#715432)

                    Paving over a wetland created Boston's Back Bay and it created San Francisco's eastern (SoMa?) area. Some of those places were salt marsh, and now all the endangered critters there are DEAD DEAD DEAD.

                    Rural folk, those "red state" MAGA people, just want to do the same. Your answer: "fuck you, got mine"

                    Let's be fair. If paving over wetlands isn't OK, we need to restore the natural wetlands of urban environments across America. Start bulldozing.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:05PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:05PM (#715283)

                  You've gone above his pay grade. We'll have to wait for The Almighty Buzzard to show up.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @07:50PM (14 children)

                  Bullshit. That's not remotely indirect. Selling poison that you know is poison as something other than poison is about as direct as it gets. Unless you can come up with an example that actually fits what you're claiming is a flaw in my reasoning, you lose this debate.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @08:17PM (13 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @08:17PM (#715374)

                    Duuuumbaaaaassss

                    Removing the regulations thst prevented the toothpaste being sold is the indirect action. "Regulations are strangling our businesses! Environmental regulations cost too much to follow properly and are destroying our businesses!" Ok lets five them freedom. Oh look, someone started doing shady shit which harms people and/or the environment.

                    Toothpaste wasnt the best example ill grant, but the idea is there if you werent so busy trying to be "right".

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:24PM (11 children)

                      Making this shit up as you go along, eh? Reckon you could justify even one sentence of that if I were to decide it was worth my time to argue with you?

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:39PM (4 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:39PM (#715418)

                        Reckon I could, think your brain could handle realizing you are wrong?

                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:10PM (3 children)

                          I'm a programmer. If I weren't wrong and had to correct myself all the time, I'd have programmed ALL OF THE THINGS already and retired.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:17PM (2 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:17PM (#715430)

                            BRILLIANT!

                            So you're wrong and you have no problem readjusting your FYGM worldview to more closely match reality.

                            I'm glad, for a while there it was looking like you might actually buy a MAGA hat.

                            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @12:43AM (1 child)

                              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 01 2018, @12:43AM (#715466) Homepage Journal

                              Poor little troll. I think it's best for you that I stop embarrassing you. I thought it might help teach you not to be a moron in public or do things that you suck at but it appears it only makes you more pathetic.

                              --
                              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:51AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:51AM (#715477)

                                Oh wonderful you've moved on to projection. I was just matching your attitude, troll for troll. Guess Mr. Snowman (let us be honest, one snowflake isn't enough for your fat ass) finally devolved into a 3 year old.

                      • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday August 01 2018, @10:03AM (5 children)

                        by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday August 01 2018, @10:03AM (#715577) Homepage Journal

                        AC more or less got my point, actually. The deregulation to allow the company to sell harmful toothpaste again is the indirect evil. Even though it's indirect, it still causes deaths that would not have happened otherwise. If radium toothpaste is a bit too blatantly harmful for you, I could have said cigarettes but you'll probably try to tell me they're not harmful enough! There's got to be something in your Goldilocks zone of harm though.

                        --
                        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @11:31AM (4 children)

                          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 01 2018, @11:31AM (#715598) Homepage Journal

                          AA, I know you mean well but you can't argue for the collectivist "will of the people" on the one hand and deny their elected representatives the right to carry out whatever that will is. That line of thinking unerringly leads to dictatorship and mass graves every single time. You need to pick an argument that Stalin or Mao wouldn't use.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                          • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday August 01 2018, @11:52AM (3 children)

                            by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday August 01 2018, @11:52AM (#715602) Homepage Journal

                            At some point the will of the overgrown monopolist corporation ceases to represent the will of the people. Shareholders may have voting rights, but corporations are not good democracies. Because of the way a corporation develops its policies over time, their behavior ceases to reflect that of any one human just as no one human will accept responsibility for evil that the corporation does. Profit and job security are the motivators that keep that running.

                            --
                            If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @12:12PM (2 children)

                              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 01 2018, @12:12PM (#715620) Homepage Journal

                              You lost me there. When did we go from being allowed to restrict an individual's rights because several indirections away someone might get harmed to talking about corporations and monopolies? Pull back a moment and return to the original discussion if you would, we can always have the other one later if it still holds interest.

                              --
                              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                              • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:00PM (1 child)

                                by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:00PM (#715751) Homepage Journal

                                You were arguing in favor of deregulation of a business that would be free to do harm without those regulations. You implied that in carrying out that deregulation, an elected government is carrying out the "will of the people". My point was that it's really just the will of the corporate lobbyists. I don't think that's a good representation of the will of the electorate, as explained in my previous post. The other side of the coin is that some restraint and discretion needs to be used in exactly how the will of the mob is followed. Sometimes they desire unethical things. To get back on topic, it's not always just about protecting the will and well-being of the people. Sometimes you have to stop to consider the same thing for the flora and fauna we share a nation with.

                                --
                                If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:33PM

                                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday August 02 2018, @02:33PM (#716237) Homepage Journal

                                  Okay, I'm back on the same page now.

                                  It seems here that your aim is off. The core problem of your example is corrupt government not anything to do with levels of abstraction in harm. But since you ask, no, I absolutely do not think politicians should go to jail for revoking a law. Not even one that keeps people from harm. Send them to jail for taking bribes, even indirect ones like a promised future "job" or large donations to their "charitable foundation", all you like though.

                                  --
                                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:53PM

                      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:53PM (#715422)

                      "Let's just remove the regulation on spreading known toxic stuff [nytimes.com] on fields while untrained unprotected people are around" - Trump Admin

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @01:33PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @01:33PM (#715175)

    Big fish eat little fish:

    Blue catfish are opportunistic predators and eat any species of fish they can catch, along with crawfish, freshwater mussels, frogs, and other readily available aquatic food sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ictalurus_furcatus#Diet [wikipedia.org]

    Could a catfish catch a minnow? I would guess so.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @02:15PM (2 children)

      They're also delicious when battered in spiced up cornmeal, which is really the most important bit.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:02PM (#715281)

        Fewer minnows, fewer catfish. Fewer catfish, fewer catfish dinners for you.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @07:54PM

          Viable argument but only if nothing fills the niche after the extinction of those minnows. Also, it would need to not be a stream as catfish generally don't do streams. Evaluating the overall impact is perfectly reasonable but protecting one unremarkable and poorly evolved species that can only live in one tiny area is just silly.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:28PM (6 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:28PM (#715218) Homepage Journal

    There's nothing potential about these implications. Unless these proposals are rejected. Fight them, people!

    Evolution had already proper fucked that minnow. Killing off all the catfish, now that would be a loss.

    Just take a look at how many highly evolved predators they identify in the Business Insider link whose existence would be further threatened by this policy.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:40PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:40PM (#715225)

      Just take a look at how many highly evolved predators they identify in the Business Insider link whose existence would be further threatened by this policy.

      Evolution rewards resilience and adaptability, not predation.

      • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:04PM

        by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:04PM (#715246) Homepage Journal

        Evolution rewards resilience and adaptability, not predation.

        Ah well. At least the rats and viruses are safe for a few more epochs, I guess.

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:43PM (3 children)

      Threatened != actually harmed. Thus "potential".

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:53PM (2 children)

        by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:53PM (#715233) Homepage Journal

        Threatened != actually harmed. Thus "potential".

        In this context, that only works if you redefine harm to mean total annihilation, because they consider these species "threatened" when a great many individuals of the species are dying without reproducing successfully. The point is, he wants the law changed because saving a few dollars is more important than giving a shit whether they die out or not. I doubt Trump cares how "potential" or not any of this is.

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:18PM (1 child)

          In the context of this article you are correct. In the context of this thread you are not. "Threatened by this policy" and "Threatened" as a classification do not mean the same thing.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:48PM

            by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:48PM (#715275) Homepage Journal

            In the Business Insider article they give several examples of (profitable) human activity that was killing off some of these species until that activity was restricted via the introduction of the ESA protections. So yes, strictly speaking, the changes in policy are only "potentially" threatening to these species, but it's only potential insofar as there's a small but non-zero probability that all those profiteers might have a change of heart and voluntarily refrain from killing them!

            --
            If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?