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: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Tuesday July 31 2018, @07:14AM (1 child)
Quit the White House. Delete your account.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday July 31 2018, @08:37AM
That would be a suspicious action. You do not want to be tracked? What do you have to hide?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:35AM (3 children)
Here's a summary of the proposal:
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @11:33AM
Please don't incite violence against Democrats.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday July 31 2018, @11:49AM (1 child)
WRONG!!! We're not giving away any land. We always, always lease it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:56PM
Wew! It sounds like a VERY SMART decision!!
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @12:32PM (44 children)
I was well aware that this was the sort of policy that would be enacted. But still. I have no words. No. Fucking. Words.
This doesn't only come under Politics. It has significant implications for the natural environment.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @12:38PM (43 children)
FTFY. Killing off a minnow that only lives in one stream on earth isn't much of a loss for the planet. Evolution had already proper fucked that minnow. Killing off all the catfish, now that would be a loss.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @01:32PM (31 children)
I believe we already covered this before [soylentnews.org]. I never did get answers to the questions I raised in my last post in that thread.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @02:27PM (30 children)
I probably either got bored with the topic or had too many "foo posted a comment in reply to your comment" messages and just deleted them all. I'll answer today though.
It's not about survival of the fittest, it's about being fit enough to survive your environment at all. If your species is so fragile that it can't endure the secondary effects of another species simply existing in the same area, you probably need to die off so that something more fit can come along and take your niche over.
I'm not saying we should go around tearing up jack just because we can but neither should we be making herculean efforts to preserve a species unless, like tasty or otherwise useful animals, it benefits us in some way. There comes a point when you're helping a species that is clearly not suited to life on this planet survive at great expense to your own simply out of misplaced and useless guilt.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:22PM (29 children)
I see what you're saying. What I was getting at in my last post in our discussion was that, never mind any herculean conservation efforts and never mind whether our mere existence threatens another species in the same area -- there are humans knowingly performing careless actions that they are fully aware will threaten various species -- such as dumping thousands of tons of plastic into the ocean. That would certainly need some effort (let's be honest, a bit of money) in the short term to change that behavior but I dispute that it would be "herculean". If the human act of dumping the plastic killed animals that do not "benefit us in some way*", according to your comments, any attempt to reverse this damage and prevent these deaths would be "playing god". What I still don't understand is why you feel humans can pretty much do what the hell they want and if that happens to kill off species not "of use" (presumably even deliberately killing them), it is not "playing god", but as soon as doing what the hell they want happens to help these species, it is "playing god". Why is only the destructive behavior ethically permitted?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:42PM (28 children)
Yeah, neither the jackasses fucking things up for everyone nor the "every species must be protected from our evil, evil selves" folks have properly functioning brains in their head.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:57PM (27 children)
I'm a little confused as I thought the right to be a total asshole was a key part of your moral philosophy, Mighty B.
Does the right to assholery extend to everyone, no matter how much power they wield over others? To, for intance, the POTUS? If not, what about to an unelected tyrannical emperor?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:07PM (1 child)
The right to be an asshole is important. That doesn't mean the rest of us have any duty to politely make no comment on said assholeishness. Call it out: "Dude, you're a goddamn fucking asshole, and I hate you. Please die in a fire yesterday."
(Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:00PM
Don't be an asshole yourself, and address people politely, so to raise your chances of getting what you request. For example:
"Dear Sir, your behavior is being perceived as indicative that you are a goddamn fucking asshole, and inciting feeling of hate towards you. Would you be so kind as to promptly, yet painfully, expire in a fire, yesterday ?"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:11PM (24 children)
The right to be an asshole is vital but your right to swing your fist ends short of my nose. It's not a complex notion. Any child old enough to speak intelligibly should be able to grasp it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:21PM (23 children)
The problem with this simplistic view is it ignores the fact that many assholeric actions will lead to harm indirectly. Azuma gave a good example a while back of selling toothpaste containing radium. Even more indirectly, advertising the toothpaste or buying shares in the company that sells that toothpaste, or deregulating the market to allow it to be sold again, can all initiate chains of events resulting in deaths that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:04PM (6 children)
"fuck you, got mine"(TM)
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:32PM (1 child)
If all else fails, perhaps this could become a SoylentNews T shirt slogan?
fuck you, got mine
or
fuck you, want yours
depending on your affiliation. Or one slogan on the front, the other on the back. Reversible?
Hey, why stop at that? Baseball caps. MNNGA. Making News For Nerds Great Again!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @07:50PM
Make Anal Greek Again
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @10:26PM (3 children)
Paving over a wetland created Boston's Back Bay and it created San Francisco's eastern (SoMa?) area. Some of those places were salt marsh, and now all the endangered critters there are DEAD DEAD DEAD.
Rural folk, those "red state" MAGA people, just want to do the same. Your answer: "fuck you, got mine"
Let's be fair. If paving over wetlands isn't OK, we need to restore the natural wetlands of urban environments across America. Start bulldozing.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @12:41AM (2 children)
Hi, red stater here. Try fucking up any fishing hole I frequent. I dare you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @01:56AM (1 child)
So the environment only matters if it presents value to yourself. You need to oooopen your miiiiiind and see the biiiigggerrrr piiiicturrrre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBkS7uMDTqs [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 01 2018, @02:36AM
I'm all about the Bigger Picture. It's what you take when you catch the Bigger Fish so your buddies will believe you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:05PM
You've gone above his pay grade. We'll have to wait for The Almighty Buzzard to show up.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @07:50PM (14 children)
Bullshit. That's not remotely indirect. Selling poison that you know is poison as something other than poison is about as direct as it gets. Unless you can come up with an example that actually fits what you're claiming is a flaw in my reasoning, you lose this debate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @01:33PM (3 children)
Big fish eat little fish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ictalurus_furcatus#Diet [wikipedia.org]
Could a catfish catch a minnow? I would guess so.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @02:15PM (2 children)
They're also delicious when battered in spiced up cornmeal, which is really the most important bit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)
Fewer minnows, fewer catfish. Fewer catfish, fewer catfish dinners for you.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @07:54PM
Viable argument but only if nothing fills the niche after the extinction of those minnows. Also, it would need to not be a stream as catfish generally don't do streams. Evaluating the overall impact is perfectly reasonable but protecting one unremarkable and poorly evolved species that can only live in one tiny area is just silly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:28PM (6 children)
There's nothing potential about these implications. Unless these proposals are rejected. Fight them, people!
Just take a look at how many highly evolved predators they identify in the Business Insider link whose existence would be further threatened by this policy.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:40PM (1 child)
Evolution rewards resilience and adaptability, not predation.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @04:04PM
Ah well. At least the rats and viruses are safe for a few more epochs, I guess.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:43PM (3 children)
Threatened != actually harmed. Thus "potential".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:53PM (2 children)
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?
(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
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?
(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.