• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Administration Eviscerates Endangered Species Act

C

crisscross

Golden Member
Bush Administration Eviscerates Endangered Species Act

The Bush administration today issued a final rule eliminating the Endangered Species Act requirement that federal agencies consult with independent scientists.

"This action eviscerates key protections that have helped safeguard and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years," said John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife and Global Warming for the National Wildlife Federation.

"Our government is founded in a system of checks, balances and accountability," he said. "President Bush has violated each of these principles by finalizing this rule in his waning days of power."

The rule comes after eight years of overt hostility toward the Endangered Species Act, saving the worst attack for last.

"Wildlife and marine biologists form the pillars of scientific integrity that support the Endangered Species Act," Kostyack said. "Knocking them out of the decision-making process will erode the foundation of this bedrock law and make it significantly harder to protect endangered species.

"More than 200,000 citizens voiced their opposition to these rollbacks. Not only has the Administration chosen to move forward, they have made matters worse by barring federal agencies from addressing the reality of global warming and its impacts on imperiled wildlife. The Bush administration has demonstrated complete disregard for public opinion with this action."

The National Wildlife Federation will work through the courts and with Congress and the Obama administration to undo the damage done today.
Click to expand...

So when Obama comes to power, he will have to spend his time undoing the damage Bush did. I just don't get it, he has been universally acknowledged as one of the worst president ever but instead of trying to do something to fix his reputation he goes around trying to fuck up the environment even more.

Well at least he did this at the end of the term rather than the beginning so hopefully we will see a reversal before any damage happens.
 
Something tells me this article without a source is presenting a slanted opinion. I'd need a lot more information to discuss this issue. You do too.
 
I just have to laugh.

I've had MSNBC on for the first time for the past few hours, and I kid not the last sentence on the air just now was along the lines of "Do you ever stop and think, look back at George Bush and wonder if the goal of his 8 years as President was to destroy as much as he can?" It's this thread to a T.

No wonder everyone here has these opinions, you're being spoon-fed this drivel by the biased media. And don't try comparing to Fox News, Fox News doesn't put out self-ads informing viewers they will learn all about Republican goodness on their network. And now they have a segment on MSNBC "Why we hate Fox News". This stuff is hilarious :laugh:




In all seriousness, there are only two options here - (1) Bush's goal really is to destroy the planet, or (2) the article is slanted. I'm going with #2.

 
Originally posted by: cubby1223
I just have to laugh.

I've had MSNBC on for the first time for the past few hours, and I kid not the last sentence on the air just now was along the lines of "Do you ever stop and think, look back at George Bush and wonder if the goal of his 8 years as President was to destroy as much as he can?" It's this thread to a T.
Click to expand...

Who said that, Olbermann? He's hack personified, you've got a mirror image of him on the right at Fox in Hannity (well, Hannity's far stupider).

No wonder everyone here has these opinions, you're being spoon-fed this drivel by the biased media. And don't try comparing to Fox News, Fox News doesn't put out self-ads informing viewers they will learn all about Republican goodness on their network. And now they have a segment on MSNBC "Why we hate Fox News". This stuff is hilarious :laugh:
Click to expand...

You really must not watch Fox News all that much. Their most moderate guy is Bill O'Reilly, whose default analysts in 2008 included the following; Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and Dick Morris, their air time outnumbering their liberal analysts (Marc LaMont Hill, Juan Williams) probably somewhere on the order of 9:1.
 
I don't even know why Bush bothers with things like this.

1. Obama will reverse it as soon as he gets in.
2. It really makes him look incompetent, like that needed help.

The only thing I can think of is that Bush will screw so much up, in terms of changes like this, that Obama simply can't catch all the changes and one or two slip by. But with the way Obama has been handling the transition, I highly doubt anything Bush does will stick.
 
Originally posted by: cubby1223
I just have to laugh.

I've had MSNBC on for the first time for the past few hours, and I kid not the last sentence on the air just now was along the lines of "Do you ever stop and think, look back at George Bush and wonder if the goal of his 8 years as President was to destroy as much as he can?" It's this thread to a T.

No wonder everyone here has these opinions, you're being spoon-fed this drivel by the biased media. And don't try comparing to Fox News, Fox News doesn't put out self-ads informing viewers they will learn all about Republican goodness on their network. And now they have a segment on MSNBC "Why we hate Fox News". This stuff is hilarious :laugh:




In all seriousness, there are only two options here - (1) Bush's goal really is to destroy the planet, or (2) the article is slanted. I'm going with #2.
Click to expand...

Bush & company don't want to "destroy the planet" per se. But they are rabid ideologues in favor of unfettered big business, and they apparently have little regard for science if it stands in the way of profit.
 
Originally posted by: cubby1223
I just have to laugh.

I've had MSNBC on for the first time for the past few hours, and I kid not the last sentence on the air just now was along the lines of "Do you ever stop and think, look back at George Bush and wonder if the goal of his 8 years as President was to destroy as much as he can?" It's this thread to a T.

No wonder everyone here has these opinions, you're being spoon-fed this drivel by the biased media. And don't try comparing to Fox News, Fox News doesn't put out self-ads informing viewers they will learn all about Republican goodness on their network. And now they have a segment on MSNBC "Why we hate Fox News". This stuff is hilarious :laugh:




In all seriousness, there are only two options here - (1) Bush's goal really is to destroy the planet, or (2) the article is slanted. I'm going with #2.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to agree.
 
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I don't even know why Bush bothers with things like this.

1. Obama will reverse it as soon as he gets in.
2. It really makes him look incompetent, like that needed help.

The only thing I can think of is that Bush will screw so much up, in terms of changes like this, that Obama simply can't catch all the changes and one or two slip by. But with the way Obama has been handling the transition, I highly doubt anything Bush does will stick.
Click to expand...

Because it is a long process to overturn a rule once it has been signed off on. May even require an act of congress.

It's sad to see this happen to one of the few laws that really works.


 
woohooo we have a month to kill all the endangered species we can before Obama reverses this rule.

Quick!!! Start hunting!!!
 
Originally posted by: cubby1223
I just have to laugh.

I've had MSNBC on for the first time for the past few hours, and I kid not the last sentence on the air just now was along the lines of "Do you ever stop and think, look back at George Bush and wonder if the goal of his 8 years as President was to destroy as much as he can?" It's this thread to a T.

No wonder everyone here has these opinions, you're being spoon-fed this drivel by the biased media. And don't try comparing to Fox News, Fox News doesn't put out self-ads informing viewers they will learn all about Republican goodness on their network. And now they have a segment on MSNBC "Why we hate Fox News". This stuff is hilarious :laugh:




In all seriousness, there are only two options here - (1) Bush's goal really is to destroy the planet, or (2) the article is slanted. I'm going with #2.
Click to expand...

So which news source do you need than to make an informed opinion that is void of any baseless attacks?
 
BGush has been a disaster for the environment ever since he took office. He's undone regulations all with the intent of aiding the bottom lines of his energy supporters. This should come as no surprise to anyone.

His timing is awesome...Obama can't just declare the changes as invalid...it will take Congress months, if not years (or decades) to undo the damage Bush has done with a single swipe of his pen.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
woohooo we have a month to kill all the endangered species we can before Obama reverses this rule.

Quick!!! Start hunting!!!
Click to expand...

It doesnt work like that, not that we'd expect you to understand that.

 
So did any of you actually read the changes or even the article?

"Current rules require biologists in the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to sign off on projects even when it is determined that they are not likely to harm species. The rule finalized Thursday would do away with that requirement, reducing the number of consultations so that the government's experts can focus on cases that pose the greatest harm to wildlife, officials said."




 
Believe me, I'm no Bush lover by any means but for christs sake a bear can't take a shit in the woods anymore without environmental zealots requiring it to get a disposal license and an environmental impact statement done first.

Why is it always one extreme or the other with this fvcking country!! :|
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
So did any of you actually read the changes or even the article?

"Current rules require biologists in the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to sign off on projects even when it is determined that they are not likely to harm species. The rule finalized Thursday would do away with that requirement, reducing the number of consultations so that the government's experts can focus on cases that pose the greatest harm to wildlife, officials said."
Click to expand...

This is just another example where opinions, politics and such, take place over common sense.

- Gun rights activists go full bore on any restrictive laws

because

- Gun rights opponents go full bore on anything that lessens restrictions.



- Pro-environmental arguments are taken to the extreme.

because

- Anti-environmental arguments are taken to the extreme.



- Labor goes to the extreme not budging

because

- Companies go to the extreme.



- Republicans go to the extreme to ensure re-election and discredit to the Democratic party

because

- Democrats go to the extreme to ensure re-election and discredit the Republican party.



No side is ever able to cross lines and agree on things that make sense and that are good for the people they are trying to serve as a whole. It just dumbfounds me how much energy the two political parties spend on things that are only geared to ensure re-election instead of actually managing the country/state/whatever they are suppose to be serving.
Noone on either side can be seen compromising because it's loss of face which means loss of (financial/voting) support.

Even here, regardless of the moves being made, they will be cheered by one side and lambasted by the other, whether or not they are good moves.

(edited to remove extra whitespace at the bottom)
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
So did any of you actually read the changes or even the article?

"Current rules require biologists in the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to sign off on projects even when it is determined that they are not likely to harm species. The rule finalized Thursday would do away with that requirement, reducing the number of consultations so that the government's experts can focus on cases that pose the greatest harm to wildlife, officials said."
Click to expand...

There is a lot of conflicting terminology here. For example, the state I live in has at least a dozen different classifications of species that are endangered. There are the EPA, the state, Forest Service, BLM, etc all of which use differed terminology. So based on that it is impossible to say how much it effects the actual process. It is just as likely that they are using the terminology to make it sound better than it actually is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top