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This discussion has been archived.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 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?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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?