ESA

Well, even the devil has some good in him…

Department of Interior says they’re improving Endangered Species Act

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/12/20802132/endangered-species-act-trump-weakening

The liberal Vox says they’re weakening the ESA.  Same with other media sources.

“Here are two of the biggest changes:”

“The new rules allow for greater leeway in protecting threatened species and open the door to industry to skirt protections”

“Until now, the agencies that enforce the ESA have had to base their decisions of whether to protect a species solely on scientific data, “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.”

The new rule removes that phrase. “The Act does not prohibit the [government] from compiling economic information or presenting that information to the public,” the rule argues. It does clarify that it’s allowed to do so “as long as such information does not influence the listing determination.” (But that’s confusing: Why strike the phrase from the guidelines in that case?)”

‘as long as such information does not influence the listing determination.’
Do not try to confuse me with facts when my mind is already made up.

Cheers

‘Do not try to confuse me with facts when my mind is already made up.’

I am not interested in listening to facts when my mind is already made up.

Jerry,

I’m with the liberal Vox on this one.   From reading the policy changes, it seems all of this has been done to game the system for commercial ranches.

From my link

”The ESA directs that determinations to add or remove a species from the lists of threatened or endangered species be based solely on the best available scientific and commercial information, and these will remain the only criteria on which listing determinations will be based.”

Ignoring the obvious commercial aspect of the decision making process, I’m skeptical about the “best available scientific information.”   In general that sounds fine, in reality, I expect politicians to cherry pick data and shop for scientists who will back their political agenda.

I don’t mind a balanced approach nor do I begrudge ranches of any size from protecting their livestock and business interests.

This doesn’t appear to be a balanced approach, mostly because wildlife do not have money and can’t buy congressmen and cabinet level officials.

There’s also the real possibility that I’m wrong here and the definite reality that I don’t know all of the variables.

Yeah, I can see how some regulations are expensive without much benefit.  We should look at all regulations and remove those that don’t work

We should not just remove all regulations because the donors demand it.  “drain the swamp”

I think you’ve covered it Jerry.   In my experice, each federal agency has a core group of appointees who pilot the trajectory for the 4-8 years the administration is in power.  I’d hope and would like to think that they would all do the best that they can to live up to their agency’s mandate, but I know that’s not always the case.

Theres room within their parameters to serve both the ranchers and endangered species, but their requirements to protect commercial interests seems to give them an out to tell whatever species to go to Hell.

It seems like this is some carryover from the Bundy Ranch tortoises

An update

https://www.npca.org/articles/2278-lawsuit-challenges-trump-administration-attack-on-endangered-species-act