# 1300 Wolves off ESL in 60 days...



## highcountrycommando (Mar 3, 2009)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... s_congress


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow. I hope the extreme environmental community takes note. I do support the core values of the ESA, but it has become far too powerful of a tool for those with extreme views, to bully their agendas when good science and reality direct otherwise. The other thing interesting to me, is these groups fought their battles so hard in court and abused that avenue, that Congress responded. Which makes sense to me. If decisions such as this are to be made, I'd rather it be done by those with political accountability than judges that face no repercussions. 

And as I mentioned in the other thread - it'll be interesting to see what happens with the designation of critical habitats for the Polar Bear - a land grab bigger than the State of California on the north slope in Alaska intended to do nothing to protect the polar bear except block any energy development - even development that can be done in concert with appropriate environmental protection.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

i look at the Endangered Species List a lot different.

here is a good take from Penn and Teller on the subject. Crock Legislation!!!






make sure you watch all 4 parts.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

While I support the idea that we ought to do what we can to keep from wiping animals off the planet, the ESA is the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. Why? It places a GS-11 biologist into a position of no accountability where they can take land, take away private property rights, restrict development if it fits their own personal agenda, by hiding behind the concept of conservation. In the case of the wolf, Groups like the Center for Biodiversity just pushed thing too far. And Congressional involvement could have been totally avoided if CBD would have been happy with the initial wolf management plan they came up with. I think we owe it to our ecosystems and our habitats to preserve species, but there needs to be accountability in that decision because it is about a balance of critters, of which people are one.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> I do support the core values of the ESA, but it has become far too powerful of a tool for those with extreme views, to bully their agendas when good science and reality direct otherwise. The other thing interesting to me, is these groups fought their battles so hard in court and abused that avenue, that Congress responded.


+1 on this. While I consider myself fairly "green" and favor the basic tenets of the ESA, I look at the current congressional action as a "check and balance" against the abuse of the judiciary committed by the extreme enviros. It is not a threat to the basic integrity of the ESA at all but may allow more equitable implementation.



GaryFish said:


> the ESA is the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. Why? It places a GS-11 biologist into a position of no accountability where they can take land, take away private property rights, restrict development if it fits their own personal agenda, by hiding behind the concept of conservation.


I worry a lot more about the extremists on either side than I do the GS-11 biologist.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thing is, the extreme enviros know all too well the power of the ESA, and how to be/work with a GS-11 to get what they want.


----------

