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, @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.