SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
- Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat - Docket Number: FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 (PDF version)
- Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants - Docket Number: FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 (PDF version)
- Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation - Docket Number: FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 (PDF version)
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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:23PM (29 children)
This is no different from the Civil Asset Forfeiture laws that are so often condemned here on SoylentNews.
Our constitution prohibits taking private property without compensation. Because the Endangered Species Act blocks landowners from developing their land, it can only be constitutional if we pay the landowners for the loss of that value.
The really big land owners sometimes get a break. There is a family that own a huge old-growth forest that is selectively logged. After huge regions started getting blocked off every time a nest of some useless animal got discovered, the owners determined that they couldn't bear the risk anymore. They would clear-cut the whole thing, running it as a normal tree farm without any of that old-growth foolishness. The fact that they were ready and willing to do this got the government to cave, giving the family a special permit to ignore the Endangered Species Act. Normal land owners don't have that kind of negotiating power; they just get fucked over and effectively lose their land without compensation.
Small land owners are strongly incentivized to quietly dispose of any endangered species they may find. The 3S policy is "Shoot, Shovel, Shut up". This is what we do.
Wetlands are a similar issue. Got a damp spot in the yard? Secretly find a way to drain it, and be sure to pull up any wetland plants. If you fail to do this, an inspector will show up at the worst moment (after weeks of unusual rain) and declare that you may no longer use your property. It is also the reason why you can't build new cranberry bogs; cranberries are wetland plants but you can't start farming in a wetland anymore -- even though you'd be preserving it as a wetland.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:13PM (6 children)
Yours is a twisted notion that the Earth is here purely for human use and exploitation.
I hear your reasons and understand why you and others would do such fucked up things, but that does not excuse the ecological destruction you engage in. You may think that your little piece of property is no big deal, but when you stack up all the people destroying the environment it becomes a real problem.
If selfishness and greed are your only motivators then consider the possibility of ecological collapse. It is already prepped and occurring in some places, and if it gets bad enough humanity will be in a very tough spot indeed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @08:57PM (4 children)
You call out my "selfishness and greed", but you won't pay for the property you take from me?
Why won't you pay? Don't you care enough about the environment to pay? Do you suffer from "selfishness and greed"?
It is not "selfishness and greed" to merely ask that I get proper compensation for that which is rightfully mine, purchased with my own hard-earned money. The communist would say so... while taking what is mine. That is hypocrisy. You suffer from "selfishness and greed" if you think it is fine to take my stuff without compensation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:09PM (3 children)
I did not say a single thing about taking your land away. If your land is taken then yes you should be compensated for it. If you are simply told that there are certain activities you are not allowed to engage in, well that should be handled on a case by case basis and is exactly why we have courts with judges.
I suffer nothing except possibly having a metabolism that runs hot enough to trigger snowflakes into meltdowns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:16PM (2 children)
Suppose the government wants an easement across your lot. To put your emotions the other way, let's say it is for something environmentally awful. The government will use the easement to taxi C-5 Galaxy cargo planes into a hanger. The easement happens to span your whole property... so sorry, but at least you still own the land! I guess you can't build the endangered snail sanctuary you've been saving up for. Your dreams are crushed, along with any snails, under the weight of government bureaucracy and a C-5 Galaxy.
We are indeed supposed to handle things on a case-by-case basis, paying out for the taken property. That is with judges if people aren't happy with the government's offer. The problem here is that the government is offering $0 for the taking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:22PM
There is no taking happening, your attempt to make an example I'd care about doesn't match the first scenario. There are a LOT of things you are not allowed to do with your own private property, this is an extension of such prohibitions.
Car analogy time!
1st scenario: Police tell you that you can't park your car on your front lawn, it must be in the driveway.
2nd scenario: Police confiscate your car and bulldoze your house.
Analysis: you are cray cray
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:12AM
Third Amendment.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:11PM
The Earth *IS* here purely for human use and exploitation. Haven't you read the Book of Genesis?
It is our God given right to do as we see fit!
DISCLAIMER: I am an atheist. Please read the above sarcastically.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:27PM (21 children)
So even though parts of this property were "blocked off," they were still able to clear-cut it. Is there some detail missing here? What, exactly, does "blocked off" mean if "blocked off" regions of forest may still be clear cut?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:42PM (15 children)
They threatened to clear cut and the gov gave up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @06:27PM (14 children)
You did not answer quoted question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @06:42PM (13 children)
Blocked off = gov said don't cut trees in a certain area.
So not physically surrounded by 50 ft tall concrete walls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @07:49PM (12 children)
So would I be correct in assuming there were at least three alternatives under consideration?
1. Acquiesce to the government's restriction of the use of their property. (Likely with negative repercussions for the value of the property.)
2. Continue using the property, including blocked off areas, as before, in violation of the law.
3. Clear cut the property, including blocked off areas, in violation of the law.
#1 was clearly unacceptable. Would you be able to help me to understand the advantage #3 had over #2 in terms of leverage over the government, as the implementation of either would seem to involve violating the law?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @08:22PM (11 children)
The answer is #1 and the owners can lump it as the minor devaluationnof the land is a smaller issue than the survival of an entire species. But here we will just disagree.
To answer your question about 2 vs 3, in 2 they will get government fines and court cases. #3 would probably result in a lawsuit as well and would be a bad idea, but it sounds like it was used as a bluff to make the gov back off completely and let them pursue #2 without leg consequences.
Profit over existence, you lot are nuts.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @08:47PM (10 children)
I'm just confused about why #3 would work. I'm under the impression that, transnational corporations (and others above the law) excluded, threatening to break more laws isn't a strategy that works to prevent enforcement action.
btw, I swear I've seen OP's scenario before, and it sounds like an urban legend. Is OP's scenario copypasta?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:10PM (1 child)
You've seen it before because it actually happened, and thus it is frequently mentioned in these discussions. I encourage everyone to copy-and-paste it at will or, better yet, dig up one of the well-researched articles and write a nicer version with Wikipedia-grade references.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @12:44AM
Well, if we're going to do that, don't we need to know some names and places? Who was involved? Where did this happen? When did this happen? What news sources reported it?
Well, for some reason I doubt you'll get us the cites.
One of the things that makes this an effective urban legend is the fact that the land in the story is not owned by a faceless corporation. It's family, evoking cozy imagery, and bringing familiarity to the situation. It paints the family as victims of some external evil. They are well-meaning folk managing their land for benefit of all until the external evil comes along. Then, through cunning and guile, they defeat the external evil. It's a common mythical archetype.
The story concludes with a warning about the evil. The family that owns the land in the tale are heroes; however mere mortals, we are warned, will not be able to fend off this evil. The warning is a common feature of cautionary tales in folklore, and we see it used here effectively.
We are not meant to ask more details about what kinds of factors set this family apart from "normal land owners," especially ones that would defeat the warning by establishing that maybe "normal families" are not at such of a risk as our hero family after all.
My recommendation: work on the warning in relation to the opening exposition about the hero family. In order for this to be a more effective urban legend, we need to avoid stark contrast between the protagonist family (the heros who fended off evil) and the everyman family. This will allow the everyman to more effectively identify with the heroes rather than being tempted into, say, Marxism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:13PM (7 children)
I have no idea if there is any truth to the supposed situation. #3 shouldn't work, but possibly the EPA or state version decided to back off their regulations in order to prevent a larger catastrophe. Most likely this is some bullshit put forth by VIM dude to try and subtly get people to prove the point, thus the leading questions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @12:31AM (6 children)
I had a feeling it was Mr. Vim as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:54AM (5 children)
Also there is a 90%+ chance that Vim guy is TMB shitposting as AC. He swears he never posts AC but being a massive troll I just can't bring myself to believe he is also an honest person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @03:55AM (4 children)
TMB's posting style is so laconic he could be anyone. Of course, it is a quasi-official account, so it makes sense the author would choose concise and declarative. I cannot find anything inconsistent with your theory.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @11:56AM (3 children)
No it's not. We don't have official accounts here. Not even quasi-official accounts. We just have people. Granted some are staff and some are non-staff but the only difference is that staff have decided to volunteer their time. Anyone at any time is free and even welcome to become staff if they can keep their personal beliefs from influencing their staff duties. I like to think I've done a hell of a lot over the years to keep people from seeing staff as special or above the community but some people just can't seem to let go of that notion.
As for the rest? Consider, have you lot ever known me to not say any damned thing that I feel like saying? Kind of makes posting anything AC seem a bit pointless, no?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:51PM (2 children)
Don't worry. I believe you. Maybe. Probably. :-)
The weakness in the theory is that it suggests a witch hunt. In addition to lacking contradictory evidence, it also lacks corroborating evidence that isn't circumstantial.
Ultimately, the truth in this matter has limited value. If one doesn't feel like debating Mr. Vim on a particular day, he is easily ignored. Otherwise he makes a decent punching bag, but he is also a mirror to the rational underpinnings of one's own approach to debating him.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @02:26PM
There's not really any evidence to be had. Even browser fingerprinting and IP address logging wouldn't be able to prove anything given even a mildly technically knowledgeable person. Which is why I went with Occam's Razor.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @12:32PM
Who's Mr. Vim?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @09:05PM (4 children)
I mean the "whole thing" to the maximum extent that is legal, getting the remaining parts as soon as the nests go empty.
I forget the numbers, so I'll make up some that are vaguely typical:
Every time some... bird or whatever... gets discovered, a region with a 1-mile radius gets blocked off. There goes 3.14 square miles of land. There are 3140 square miles of land, and there are fanatical environmentalists who trespass on the land in order to find more nests. The goal of the environmentalists is to block off all the land.
So 100 nests have been found, and 314 square miles have thus been lost. That is 10% of the land, a painful loss. The owners decide to clear-cut the remaining 90% of the land, which is 2826 square miles. They dare not wait until 1000 nests have been found by the very determined environmentalists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:08AM (2 children)
As we know, blocking off the land does not involve a large and beautiful wall. I think I am confused. What use, exactly, of the blocked off land are they deprived?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:20AM (1 child)
Logging, obviously, and anything else that would disturb the endangered species.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:55PM
If logging is the only use for the land we can identify, then it would be rational to clear cut the remaining land and run a tree farm. Why would they not want to pursue that?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:57AM
Ah yes, humans should be allowed to choose profit over the existence of other creatures. It is short sighted and cruel.