GOP Prepares to "Roll Back" Endangered Species Act
82 replies, posted
[QUOTE=laharlsblade;51683281]Man I never see the pro-Trump people in threads like this, weird ain't it? I'm really curious to hear even one reason why this isn't scummy as fuck
Edit: and just like that I've been ninja'd. And yeah that above post is about what I'd expect lmao[/QUOTE]
Hi! Calm your tits, not all of us are awake at 2-3am to comment on the Endangered Species Act.
But in all seriousness I remember on a episode of Penn & Teller Bullshit that kind of laminated why the Endangered species act has some serious problems and regulations with it. Something about how people have to move out of an area because of one single species of bird, or ridiculous investing to preserve said species, but they die off anyways cause, lol, natural selection.
Not only that, but a google search turns up that this act is criticized by non-partisan entities like the Smithsonian and Policy analysis institute.
[url]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-the-endangered-species-act-is-broken-and-how-to-fix-it-63482436/[/url]
[url]http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st303.pdf[/url]
[quote=NCPA]The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, was designed to recover species to a level at
which they are no longer considered endangered and therefore do not require the Act’s protection. Unfortunately,
the law has had the opposite effect on many species. The ESA can severely penalize landowners
for harboring species on their property, and as a result many landowners have rid their property of the species
and habitat rather than suffer the consequences. [/quote]
I think this is much more complicated than a Captain America villain move is all I am saying.
[QUOTE=PsycheClops;51683195]so they could [I]sell[/I] us things fresh air?[/QUOTE]
There's already an [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_bar"]existing market[/URL] for it.
Is there anything we can do to stop this? It's fucking ridiculous that these people are willing to destroy the planet to increase profits
[QUOTE=.Vel;51683498]You're a complete fool. You're generalizing, as if everyone who voted Trump immediately swore a cultist like oath to believe whatever the orange man says is right. You do realize people have differing opinions, right? That the mass of humanity isn't completely the same? There's hundreds of thousands of people who think trump's actions and beliefs aren't the best course of action, yet chose him anyways because it was a choice between two candidates. You and other people make these damned posts out of spite, rage. I get it. Trump and his actions are asinine. But what's happened, is done. You don't fix things by writing angrily on a forum about your hatred of all things Trump.
You really want this to end? You, and everyone who has some semblance of agreeance with this post? Go write to your governor, talk to local politicians. Spread the word to do the same. Posting about how Trump is a horrible choice and anyone who voted for him is a terrible person only divides people more. You can't meet polarized opinion with even stronger opposition. That's sure as hell not what people need. And it doesn't do a single damned thing for your cause or beliefs. It only serves AGAINST you, to harm your and the people who share similar beliefs appearance.
Do something else beyond this to solve your issues with this country, because posting on a forum with less than 50k people out of rage sure as hell won't help.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
This goes for everyone who has made a post similar to his. And this doesn't just stop with the Trump issues. This expands into every facet, every moment of conflict in our entire lives. Use rational thinking when you act. I'm no saint myself when it comes to this approach, but I'm starting to sure as hell come closer to it the longer I read these forums.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
If it wasn't obvious enough, I'm against this and against most of trump's values and beliefs. Just try to do something more than talk about how you despise what's going on politically. Take action. Stand up for what you believe in. And try to not divide people more than they are already. You need to be accepting, tolerant. Not spiteful and quick to lash out. Being kind is an essential thing to keep people together in life.[/QUOTE]
nothing beyond the first paragraph has [I]anything[/I] to do with the topic.
what they're getting at, .Vel, is that there are quite a lot threads about new republican policies that trump opponents think are bad, and that trump supporters never defend, which suggests that they are indefensibe.
[QUOTE=JXZ;51683896]nothing beyond the first paragraph has [I]anything[/I] to do with the topic.
what they're getting at, .Vel, is that there are quite a lot threads about new republican policies that trump opponents think are bad, and that trump supporters never defend, which suggests that they are indefensibe.[/QUOTE]
Or that we don't need to try to reiterate in every thread similar points we've done before.
Also many of these bad trump news thread are just speculation alot of the times. Not alot of arguing worth making if were talking about the 5th time a new Secretary of State Candidate comes up or yet another thread on Russian Collusion with no hard evidence.
There needs to be more safe spots for wildlife not less. And many animals that 'rely' on the endangered species act, we put there ourselves through hunting. If you can't tell I'm very pissed that this is happening.
[QUOTE=Gnorm57;51683937]There needs to be more safe spots for wildlife not less. And many animals that 'rely' on the endangered species act, we put there ourselves through hunting. If you can't tell I'm very pissed that this is happening.[/QUOTE]
Should read the studies I posted. They show a reverse effect the ESA has on species.
[quote]The greatest problem with the Act is its land-use control provisions. These provisions penalize
public and private landowners by:
l Fining landowners up to $100,000 and/or sentencing them to up to one year in jail for harming
one eagle, owl, wolf or other protected species, or even its habitat,[b] whether the habitat is occupied
or not.[/b]
l Prohibiting, or tightly regulating, otherwise normal and legal land uses, such as farming, lumbering,
construction, human habitation or even visiting the land.
l Providing no compensation landowners for the loss of land value, loss of income or lost use of
land.
l Extending regulations to land that isn’t currently occupied by an endangered species — but
might be suitable for the species’ breeding, resting, roosting or feeding.
l Subjecting millions of acres and millions of human residents to land use regulations for a
single protected species.
Yet, private landowners are the key to successful endangered species conservation, because 78 percent
of these species are found on private land. [b]However, because landowners are penalized for harboring
species, many of them take actions to rid their property of the species either by killing them or by applying
a “scorched earth” policy that makes actual or potential habitat unsuitable through such activities as plowing,
prematurely cutting trees or clearing brush. [/b]
The ESA’s punitive nature also helps explain the Act’s sorry record conserving species. Proponents
of the ESA cite species that have recovered due to the Act. Yet, almost invariably these claims are
untrue or exaggerated. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially claims 46 delisted species
— 19 due to recovery, 17 due to data error, 9 due to extinction and one due to partial recovery/data
error. In reality, the delistings were due to the following:
l Twenty-seven species have been removed due to data error — including the American alligator,
which was delisted soon after its initial listing because it was found to be abundant, clearly
indicating it was never endangered and was improperly surveyed.
l Nine species were determined to be extinct.
l Five species were delisted due primarily to factors unrelated to the ESA, including the ban on
the pesticide DDT.
l Five species were delisted for a variety of other reasons including: private conservation; state,
not federal, conservation efforts; and recovery despite harm done by the ESA.
[b]Congress and others have offered cosmetic reforms to improve the ESA’s effectiveness — tacitly
admitting that the Act’s punitive approach has failed and that new approaches are needed. However, these
reforms will do little to remove the penalties that undermine the ESA.[/b]
The key to future success for endangered species protection is to set a new course based on the
recognition that landowners will be cooperative and even helpful when they benefit from, or are at least
are not harmed by, conservation initiatives. This means stripping the ESA of its land-use controls.[/quote]
[url]http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st303.pdf[/url]
Silly Trump Supportin me tho, I should have just sat on my hands and watched the circle jerk of this thread go about how bond villain conservatives are. How could I even argue that such a beautiful act like the ESA could be bad!? /s
And ofcourse, the next arguement is, "Well Tudd, you may be right, but you expect Republicans to do better??"
Well yah, Democrats could have fixed this at any point in the last 8 years if they actually cared or were good at their job, but they lost that chance now, and it looks like the Republicans are now finally doing something about it.
It's not like the ESA is the perfect bill, but it has brought back the American Bison from the brink of extinction, and aided the recovery of many endangered animals. I agree that confiscating land from farmers and loggers is extreme, and only adds more hatred for the animals. But from precedence Republican lawmakers tend to gut laws that don't favor their own views of America. They want to drill on federally protected land, instead of transitioning to renewable energy. If it was just what you highlighted then I might have agreed, but the Republican Congress wants to profit from Federally protected land through drilling. Which would have untold ramifications for the wildlife there.
[QUOTE=Gnorm57;51684001]It's not like the ESA is the perfect bill, but it has brought back the American Bison from the brink of extinction, and aided the recovery of many endangered animals. I agree that confiscating land from farmers and loggers is extreme, and only adds more hatred for the animals. But from precedence Republican lawmakers tend to gut laws that don't favor their own views of America. They want to drill on federally protected land, instead of transitioning to renewable energy. If it was just what you highlighted then I might have agreed, but the Republican Congress wants to profit from Federally protected land through drilling. Which would have untold ramifications for the wildlife there.[/QUOTE]
Well I think from this post that someone made, the changes are not that unreasonable so far.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1549007&p=51683491&viewfull=1#post51683491[/url]
[QUOTE=agentalexandre;51683675]People who think like you are the reason humanity is dooming itself and this planet. We are on the verge of the next great extinction event and its mainly our own fault. We have a moral responsibility to do everything we can to prevent that. Every endangered species saved from extinction is a good thing - they have the same right to be here that you do and since its our fault they're dissapearing, its up to us to reverse that.
Even if you're selfish and you only care about yourself (or to a lesser extent, you only care about the human race), it is critical to you and your descendent's survival to protect the environment that we live in.
To be honest, perhaps we should just allow you to die, you sound like a waste of resources in your own right.[/QUOTE]
What even is this? Yes, of course humans are more important than a little sardine like fish like the delta smelt.
Clearly you didn't even look into it, though.
[QUOTE=Nookyava;51683491]Just because someone is pro Trump doesn't mean they support everything that's happening.
From what I can understand of the article, they're not completely looking to remove it. They're in discussions for it, and so far it looks like it's to help out a few areas that maybe don't need it.
For example...[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In the House, Rep. Tom McClintock of California, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands, said he wants to ease logging restrictions in national forests to reduce tree density blamed for catastrophic wildfires.[/QUOTE]
This is the first I've ever seen wildfires being blamed primarily on tree density. The [URL="http://news.agu.org/press-release/more-bigger-wildfires-burning-western-u-s-study-shows/"]American Geophysical Union[/URL] and the [URL="http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Causing-Extreme-Weather/Wildfires.aspx"]National Wildlife Foundation[/URL] have pegged climate change as the primary cause for wildfire conditions. Cutting down more trees won't do much to address the underlying conditions that are promoting wildfires.
The wolf issue largely stems from Wyoming failing to develop a sufficient protection plan. The last time they tried to change the listing of they declared wolves as predators/trophy game and[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/us/protection-for-wolves-is-restored-in-wyoming.html"] killed at least 20% of their population in a year, killing and injuring potentially many more[/URL]. The problem here was Wyoming failing to do their part in conservation at a local level.
There are obvious problems with the ESA, and Tudd linked to a few of the better summaries of criticisms levied at the ESA. There is a ton of variation in the recovery of listed species, but [URL="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035730"]the best predictive index for recovery is the number of years a species has been listed[/URL], which suggests that the ESA might be doing [I]something[/I]. Data on listed species varies in quality (this could maybe be improved with more funding for research!), and most of the species listed haven't been protected for very long, which makes evaluation of the system somewhat difficult. Depending on how you look at the species listed, the ESA has either protected 2% or 90+% of species, so clearly we need to objectively reevaluate this system.
Personally I'd like to see landowners paid and incentivized to protect endangered species. It's not necessarily the fault of the landowner that these organisms use their land.
I would rather my tax money go to saving animal species than fighting wars to be honest.
Nothing but bad news now when it comes to politics these days. Just one shitty thing after another.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51684031]What even is this? Yes, of course humans are more important than a little sardine like fish like the delta smelt.
Clearly you didn't even look into it, though.[/QUOTE]
Why did you need to chose a ridiculous comparison like that?
[QUOTE=Overhauser;51684140]Why did you need to chose a ridiculous comparison like that?[/QUOTE]
Well, if you can't use a piece of water in California because of a singular species that may or may not inhabit that water, it might be a worthy point to say that.
[quote]Efforts to protect the endangered fish from further decline have focused on limiting or modifying the large-scale pumping activities of state and federal water projects at the southern end of the estuary thereby limiting water available to farming. However, these efforts have not prevented the species from becoming functionally extinct in the wild.[/quote]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_smelt[/url]
Sometimes evolution has taken its course on some species and we should move on.
Bad example for the ESA? Yep, but it shows that the act isn't flexible and has problems with numerous species if you start to look it up.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51684125]I would rather my tax money go to saving animal species than fighting wars to be honest.[/QUOTE]
While I'd rather not fight wars I don't think we need to think of these things as an either-or-situation.
If the United States were to enact a carbon tax some of those funds could go to compensating landowners for conservation efforts. Fossil fuels contribute to environmental destruction, so it's only fair that the people causing these problems pay for the solutions to fix them instead of dumping the costs on people that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684160]Well, if you can't use a piece of water in California because of a singular species that may or may not inhabit that water, it might be a worthy point to say that.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_smelt[/url]
Sometimes evolution has taken its course on some species and we should move on.
Bad example for the ESA? Yep, but it shows that the act isn't flexible and has problems with numerous species if you start to look it up.[/QUOTE]
california water critics like to bitch but pumping water out is not only important for one species, it maintains the correct flow pattern, maintains the river's natural state and also keeps cities and towns inland from getting flooded with brakish water
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684160]Well, if you can't use a piece of water in California because of a singular species that may or may not inhabit that water, it might be a worthy point to say that.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_smelt[/URL]
Sometimes evolution has taken its course on some species and we should move on.
Bad example for the ESA? Yep, but it shows that the act isn't flexible and has problems with numerous species if you start to look it up.[/QUOTE]
The Delta Smelt is an [I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator_species"]indicator species[/URL][/I]. Yes, it is a small and insignificant looking species if you only look at the smelt instead of looking at the entire ecosystem. It's easier to try to manage indicator species than it is to try to manage an entire ecosystem. Conservation efforts focused on indicator species are massive cost saving measures and should be encouraged. Would you rather focus conservation on one organism or 500+ potentially?
Looking at the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, the whole region is sinking because the peat soil is dissolving as it becomes oxygenated. This is largely due to human activity. The region is a critical agricultural center, and as it sinks saltwater leaks into the estuary and reduces the available freshwater supply. The available pool of freshwater continues to shrink as the region continues to increase in salinity from ocean breaches and the agricultural and commercial demands for water increase as well. Pumping out [I]more[/I] water from a [I]decreasing[/I] supply is supposed to contribute to the long-term success of the region how?
I'm more concerned with keeping the region agriculturally viable than I am with protecting the Delta Smelt especially since we've had success with captive breeding efforts. Farmers need to figure out how to better utilize the land they're on, and I hope that the efforts by the State of California and the Federal government help them transition to husbandry techniques that [I]preserve[/I] the prosperity of their land long-term. We need that food.
Okay, the ESA could use some edits to balance things in some parts, I'll admit that.
But look at GOP, it's priorities and tell me, in all honesty, what do you think is more likely to happen?
1. Careful consideration what could make the Act friendlier to drilling companies while ensuring that truly endangered species will be protected or,
2. Complete neuterisation to the point where it does fuck all and gives free reign to any drilling company that wants to fuck endangered species in the ass for a quick buck?
To a degree these laws had to be weakened. There are some insane satire tier environmental laws, at lease here in California. For example in a town I used to live in, a new lane was added to the highway, and in order to protect the birds from noise that might scare them, a FUCKING HUGE ass wooden wall was built along the highway for miles and miles (pretty much the whole town). It was a horrible eyesoar beyond belief and a huge waste of taxpayer money. And it's not like the noise can't travel over the wall. But FP is full of teenage idealists who think all liberal laws are reasonable and work as intended, and without them we'll become some 1900's smokestack wasteland so w/e.
Let's allow the Delta smelt to die, great thinking - it definitely isn't part of a complex ecosystem. It passing due to changes in stream conditions won't be a sign that other similar species will follow suit locally. \s
If you think Republicans would touch the ESA out of their good nature you're delusional. This is about resource harvesting without the need for environmental reparation. They won't stop here.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Baconator;51684256]To a degree these laws had to be weakened. There are some insane satire tier environmental laws, at lease here in California. For example in a town I used to live in, a new lane was added to the highway, and in order to protect the birds from noise that might scare them, a FUCKING HUGE ass wooden wall was built along the highway for miles and miles (pretty much the whole town). It was a horrible eyesoar beyond belief and a huge waste of taxpayer money. And it's not like the noise can't travel over the wall. But FP is full of teenage idealists who think all liberal laws are reasonable and work as intended, and without them we'll become some 1900's smokestack wasteland so w/e.[/QUOTE]
What kinds of birds were those? I'm sure you're well enough versed in ecology to explain to us the impact that this species of bird becoming extinct would have on the ecosystem. Are those birds migratory? Etc.
To the layperson this might seem like bullshit, but our world is sometimes fragile.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51684257]
To the layperson this might seem like bullshit, but our world is sometimes fragile.[/QUOTE]
We have had Meteors and Ice Ages that have completely destroyed ecologies and millions of species we no longer have today.
Our earth is not as fragile as you imagine.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;51684254]Okay, the ESA could use some edits to balance things in some parts, I'll admit that.
But look at GOP, it's priorities and tell me, in all honesty, what do you think is more likely to happen?
1. Careful consideration what could make the Act friendlier to drilling companies while ensuring that truly endangered species will be protected or,
2. Complete neuterisation to the point where it does fuck all and gives free reign to any drilling company that wants to fuck endangered species in the ass for a quick buck?[/QUOTE]
Well the democrats have reaped what they sowed, especially for not trying to fix it before.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684283]
Well the democrats have reaped what they sowed, especially for not trying to fix it before.[/QUOTE]
Are you joking? Your excuse for this shit is, "Democrats tried too hard to protect endangered species so it's only right GOP will bring them to total extinction"?
You're not even trying to argue they might not do it, you're just trying to blame Democrats for this. :incredible:
Glad to see you have that much of a basic understanding about our world. Feedback loops tend to even things out.
Good luck not getting swept up by the wave of death that happens in an extinction event though. The change to the environment does not necessarily support human life or agriculture. Not saying it will destroy the Earth. I'm saying it will destroy us, at least for a couple thousand years.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684283]We have had Meteors and Ice Ages that have completely destroyed ecologies and millions of species we no longer have today.
Our earth is not as fragile as you imagine.[/QUOTE]
You know what happens during a mass extinction event right?
[QUOTE]Well the democrats have reaped what they sowed, especially for not trying to fix it before.[/QUOTE]
"The Democrats didn't do a good enough job so burning it to the ground without providing any constructive alternative is justified"
How do you expect your country to progress if you fall to this sort of partisan drivel?
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51684257]Let's allow the Delta smelt to die, great thinking - it definitely isn't part of a complex ecosystem. It passing due to changes in stream conditions won't be a sign that other similar species will follow suit locally.
If you think Republicans would touch the ESA out of their good nature you're delusional. This is about resource harvesting without the need for environmental reparation. They won't stop here.[/QUOTE]
The Delta Smelt issue is a good indicator of the general public's understanding of our scientific efforts, much like when Palin complained about fruit fly research.
Scientists need to do better outreach in general because the public doesn't understand that we're already actively engaging in cost-saving measures everywhere we can.
The Smelt being unviable in the region is an alarm bell that tells us the entire region is critically unstable. While we can't accurately predict how much damage will be done to the region should the status quo be maintained, we know that the region as we know it likely will not survive. It could be that the brunt of the damage is soaked up by the wildlife, the farmers, or both. Minimizing the damage done to the farmers requires that we maintain the stability of the region to the best of our abilities, or at least research the region more so that we can make more accurate predictions.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684283]We have had Meteors and Ice Ages that have completely destroyed ecologies and millions of species we no longer have today.
Our earth is not as fragile as you imagine.[/QUOTE]
It's not about protecting the earth, it's about protecting the humans that inhabit it. Short-sighted measures like increased pumping simply aren't viable for the long-term success of the region. Real solutions are going to take time and money to develop.
[QUOTE]Well the democrats have reaped what they sowed, especially for not trying to fix it before.[/QUOTE]
Combating climate change is part of the solution to this problem. Would you rather spend money on every at-risk ecological area as they develop or take preventative action from the top-down so that you don't have to spend as much money in individual areas when things inevitably go to shit?
Think of the cost differences between brushing your teeth every day vs getting a root canal.
Law needs to be reworked, but not significantly relaxed.
I hope they don't do that.
Do not relax the law, that leads to the "give an inch, take a mile" problem, and don't act like it won't happen.
[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;51684321]Are you joking? Your excuse for this shit is, "Democrats tried too hard to protect endangered species so it's only right GOP will bring them to total extinction"?
You're not even trying to argue they might not do it, you're just trying to blame Democrats for this. :incredible:[/QUOTE]
Well it's more like I am trying to tell you why this situation is happening, and now you get republicans to deal with in a harsher way than the ideal way.
Do I agree with it 100%? Nope, but I think it is fair to say that at any point, the party claiming to be environmental-loving could have fixed the issues that non-partisan critics have pointed out.
And yah I can easily start blaming Democrats, when they do dumb shit like veto a bill that would require the government to disclose how they classify endangered species. How the fuck is that a bad thing? It's actually counter intuitive to making the ESA a better bill and worse off for environmentalists if they can't even know why a species is on the list.
[quote]The House passed a bill Tuesday that would require the government to disclose all data it relies upon when determining whether a species is endangered.
GOP supporters say the legislation was introduced in response to an increasing number of plant and animal species qualifying as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Critics warned it would increase bureaucracy and facilitate poaching.
Approved Tuesday by a 233-190 vote, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act has little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled Senate. Nevertheless, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a statement prior to the vote [b]saying the president would veto the bill were it to pass.[/b][/quote]
[url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-house-vote-endangered-species-act-20140729-story.html[/url]
Me saying, "You reap what you sow." isn't a short-handed argument of "deal with it." but pointing out this is how we got to this current situation and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with a knowledge on the ESA.
[editline]17th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51684329]
Combating climate change is part of the solution to this problem. Would you rather spend money on every at-risk ecological area as they develop or take preventative action from the top-down so that you don't have to spend as much money in individual areas when things inevitably go to shit?
Think of the cost differences between brushing your teeth every day vs getting a root canal.[/QUOTE]
You see I actually support measures that incentive land-owners to keep their areas friendly to endangered species like the study I posted says. So just know I don't just say fuck the environment when I say that phrase.
Lets consider that this bill wasn't rejected out of spite. That perhaps the issue of specification is a problem. If you have any background in taxonomy, you get to experience the difficulty that comes with deciding what an individual species is. I can't speak for their motivations without reading more about the specific bill, but I can elucidate something.
The number of species listed is arbitrary. As taxonomists we have to break taxa into larger numbers of species, to better reflect reproductive behavior and similar features that warrant calling a species its own thing. (This can be one of those ivory tower things, but as taxonomists the politics is secondary to the science. The split taxa's individual health may still warrant protection.) This is largely subjective work, and takes years of debate between professionals that understand the organisms very well to reach a solid consensus. By requiring a strict set of criteria, that may often be difficult to prepare, the Republicans probably sought to undermine the ESA. The data is generally disclosed already, but most people aren't going to know shit about phyloanalysis, the rest of the process to do shit with it.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51684365]Lets consider that this bill wasn't rejected out of spite. That perhaps the issue of specification is a problem. If you have any background in taxonomy (I'd really be surprised tbh), you get to experience the difficulty that comes with deciding what an individual species is. I can't speak for their motivations without reading more about the specific bill, but I can elucidate something.
The number of species listed is arbitrary. As taxonomists we have to break taxa into larger numbers of species, to better reflect reproductive behavior and similar features that warrant calling a species its own thing. This is largely subjective work, and takes years of debate between professionals that understand the organisms very well to reach a solid consensus. By requiring a strict set of criteria, that may often be difficult to prepare, the Republicans probably sought to undermine the ESA. The data is generally disclosed already, but most people aren't going to know shit about phyloanalysis, the rest.[/QUOTE]
So why can't the information still be divulged besides, "Too complicated"?
Surely as a practitioner of science, it is only for the better with knowledge being shared. Who cares if it's a layman reading it, but other scientists outside of the agency might want to know.
What harm does releasing the qualifications of which they classify species going to do?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.