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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @08:17PM (13 children)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
"Let's just remove the regulation on spreading known toxic stuff [nytimes.com] on fields while untrained unprotected people are around" - Trump Admin