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: 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.