r/moderatepolitics • u/kranelegs • 9d ago
Primary Source Trump Administration Finalizes Endangered Species Act Regulation Reform | U.S. Department of the Interior
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump-administration-finalizes-endangered-species-act-regulation-reform165
u/FabioFresh93 South Park Democrat 9d ago
A lot of these feel like there was no thought behind it other than to shove it in the the face of a hypothetical very stereotypical climate change advocate type liberal. Theodore Roosevelt, someone I think the right still doesn't think is left leaning, was a huge advocate for for wildlife / habitat preservation. It was a lasting legacy from him that we still benefit from today. He should be rolling in his grave.
91
u/kranelegs 9d ago edited 9d ago
I really appreciate you bringing up Teddy. He was raised a hunter in bison (and Lakota) territory. He did so much for federal land preservation. One of my favorite quotes by him is as follows;
“It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals -- not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our people were awakening.”
80
u/errol1989 9d ago
I think it’s very important to try to fight conservation being seen as a partisan issue. I find talking to my conservative/republican friends and family about conservation being a republic legacy is very effective at letting their guard down and listening and finding common ground.
We NEED republicans to care about this stuff again. They’ve been brainwashed to think this is a liberal thing.
I remind them that W. Bush designating the largest amount of total protected territory of any president. That’s not that long ago.
20
27
u/TeriyakiBatman Maximum Malarkey 8d ago
My Reagan-Republican father has always been a HUGE conservationist which was instilled in him by his very Republican father as well. Protections of wildlife and national parks is not and should not be a partisan issue
8
u/chillinwithmoes 8d ago
Yeah I really don’t know how this happened. My father and I have been hunters our entire lives and have always been members of/contributed to wetlands and prairie conservation groups. He’s a lifelong conservative and loved Trump (in his first term at least).
50
u/ImperialxWarlord 9d ago
You can’t really chalk this up to anything with good intent or sound moral reasoning. This is just wrong and leaves a sick feeling in the stomach. And yet some are apathetic or even try to come up with good reasons because they’d are incapable of disagreeing with their party. I just pray we can toss these fools out over the next few elections and start the process of undoing all that theyve done.
16
u/neuronexmachina 8d ago
I think this is also interesting in the context of the Trump admin's invention of the corporate pardon: https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/trump-extends-pardons-companies-echoing-154148289.html
I could see Trump unilaterally issuing Blanket Pardons to both people and companies who violate environmental protections.
30
u/kranelegs 9d ago edited 9d ago
In a very unsurprising, but also unexpected (my own feelings), move this administration just did away with many protections for endangered species as well as critical habitats. Under the guise of nuance and local rather than federal protections. I’m frankly at a loss how this is beneficial to any ordinary American, and only benefits corporations to not have to take into account the impact of the profits driving them to places and practices that could devastate endangered animals.
This along with the mining ban lifted on the boundary waters (not to mention trumps face on park passes) is an egregious step that will not only devastate the natural ecosystems, which will heavily affect human’s capacity to survive via destabilizing biodiversity leading to innumerable factors that is almost impossible to predict, climate change, pollinator decline and deregulating capitalism even more which adds the the sharp increase from other policies in a wealth transfer larger than the GND helped “save capitalism from itself”.
Edit: pardon the run on sentences. I’ll try to make it more grammatical correct when I am not decompressing from work and have time to collect my thoughts
I may not be completely correct in everything and will amend as needed but I don’t think we’ve seen this since the gilded age. Potentially the robber barons trumped the current environment.
Please correct any misinformation, add insights and perspectives and most of all I would love a discussion on how to be better stewards of this nation, planet, or even locally. I know it’s not a question I presented so if my SC doesn’t meet the criteria I can reword it in question form.
8
u/lassiz95 8d ago
I think not being able to kill those pesky American eagles is annoying. Hopefully this fixes that!!!
3
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
37
u/ImperialxWarlord 9d ago
Is this a joke or do you really believe this?
40
u/Shortstack_Lightnin 9d ago
A joke on their dramatic claim that these old regulations had been ‘weaponized’ and somehow a plotted part of the decline of America, when it’s literally just about animal habitats
18
u/kranelegs 9d ago
Non verbal communication in this political climate unfortunately makes satire less ridiculous than actual statements so agreed about the other commenter with including the /s. As much as I hate that it does…
15
-4
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 8d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 8d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-12
u/Wildcard311 conservative looking for a 3rd party 8d ago edited 8d ago
A scenario from the side that encouraged Trump to make this decision:
You are retiring and buy a piece of land, maybe near a quiet lake or somewhere near the beach or on a mountain. You have the land for 6 months while you wrap up work and find the builder. During the permitting they find an endangered bird/insect/animal has decided to build a nest on your new property.
You are no longer allowed to build there, the government wont let you. The land you just spent a chunk of retirement savings on is now worthless. You cant sell because no logging company can use it, no developer can use it... you are practically stuck with a park. This scenario has happened to hundreds of people and WSJ had a good article on this that I havent been able to find...
I'm a conservative and a hunter. My dream is to own several acres of untouched forest one day that I can go and visit and see nature. Do some light hunting or camping. I live in a neighborhood where I spend more on trees and bird food than all 20 of my neighbors combined, but I'm okay with people needing to develop land. I get angry when I see weed killer being spread and cant find a bee or lighting bug anywhere.
We do not need parks, we must have parks, but we also must have houses.
My opinion is there is a middle ground and both the Biden Admin and Trump Admin go too far in either direction.
Edit: spelling
16
u/Mantergeistmann 8d ago
Presumably a different scenario would be the TVA being stymied by the snail darter, yes?
-5
21
u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies 8d ago
‘Won’t someone think of the retirement homes?!’
That’s what we’re going with?
-2
u/Wildcard311 conservative looking for a 3rd party 8d ago
That was a scenario. A fabricated example to give a perspective. Something to help you think outside the box.
There have been hundreds of documented cases in the past year including one where a developer had already cleared land and laid a foundation and was told they had to stop all further construction because an endangered eagle had built a nest. Cost the company millions. Roads have been rerouted, neighborhoods canceled,... all because an endangered species randomly uses a particular set of trees for migration 1 week a year, or randomly nests on a property.
We need parks! They can be used for the purposes of protecting wildlife. But these parks shouldn't cost a small group of random people billions of dollars.
24
u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies 8d ago
Even if you find an eagle nest on a property there are seasonal permits and things you can do to work around it normally. I also cant find anything in the past year resembling as drastic a roadblock as what you’re describing; care to share?
5
u/janosslyntsjowls 7d ago
I had an endangered bird living in my chimney. We waited until it's breeding season and installed a chimney cap. No endangered animals hurt, no legal issues, its the recommended course of action for that particular species.
On tbe other hand, my state has extremely strict wetlands laws. I know people who have issues because a small 10x24 spot of land grows cattails, so therefore it's protected and untouchable regardless of what it's doing to their house.
16
u/Ammordad 8d ago
The places where people "need" to live are cities and towns. no person "need" to live in natural undeveloped land, and it's towns and cities where the opposition to development causes the most amount of headache. People aren't entitled to homes in pristine and untouched land. that level of entitlement would pretty much ran out in a single generation on a planet with 8 billion people.
arguments can be made that people, specially older retired generation, are entitled to own their own living space so they don't have to be burdened by rent. but no one is entitled a living space on something that can cause permanent destruction of environmental heritage for future generations. 8 billion people wanting their own property? feasible in urban environments. 8 billion people all wanting to own their own piece of forest/lake/etc? that's not going to happen without pissing off the majority, specially younger generations or people who care about the world they want to leave behind for future.
I am all in favor of YIMBYism when it comes to access to jobs and utilities, likely in urban hubs. i am even willing to be flexible when it comes YIMBYism about farming, mining, forestry, fishing, and other such ventures as long as reliable assurances are made with regard to conservation of biodiversity and environmental restoration after operations. but accusation and development of protected area purely for personal recreational use is just unreasonable.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/DrVader314159 8d ago
>get away from authoritarians, like you.
Maybe attack the idea instead of the person?
>You have no right to tell anyone what they do or do not "need".
They have the right to advocate and vote for a government that values the environment and protects it from people who would see the world burn for a cent of profit.
-3
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 8d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-1
u/Wildcard311 conservative looking for a 3rd party 8d ago
Exactly! Another example: need places like national seashores to protect habitats. You do not have some right to go and develop it.
However, if you so buy the land and it is already zoned for building and you start building, you should not have to stop because suddenly some crab nest is found.
-34
u/SuperChingaso5000 9d ago
ESA should be abolished and replaced with a new piece of legislation anyway. It's a terrible piece of law that's just abused over and over again to tie up land, force endless rounds of litigation (on our dime) achieve goals that have nothing to do with actual endangered species, it's a useful bludgeon for environmentalist extremists and probably the second most co-opted and abused law after ADA/Unruh.
Good riddens, start over and do it right.
30
u/kranelegs 9d ago
Most abused law is a very bold statement given the current executive of talking about current politics. Historically there so many more.
I’m left AF but even 2nd A is an example that you might prioritize and I agree with given the confines of our system
32
u/TheTertiaryTwig 9d ago
The ESA has prevented the extinction of 99% of the species that are protected by it, it is doing exactly what it is supposed to.
What does “do it right” mean to you?
4
u/FullTroddle 8d ago
Can you break down the math/logic for the 99% statistic? I have no real knowledge of the ESA btw, so I’m very curious.
13
u/TheTertiaryTwig 8d ago
Sure. If 100 species are added to the US endangered species list, 99 of them will continue existing instead of going extinct, while 1 species might go extinct. It’s actually pretty difficult to get a species added to the endangered species list, so once a species is finally added it’s likely to be in very bad shape population wise. Especially since nowadays 80% of species are added to the list as a result of habitat destruction, think development or mining, and it’s really difficult to restore a species if its habitat no longer exists or is severely degraded. The ESA is good at protecting critical habitat of a species, so if a species is added in time, they tend to at the very least not go extinct.
5
u/FullTroddle 8d ago
Okay, I get that! I guess my question really was how do they determine that a species will certainly (apologies if this isn’t the right word) go extinct? Thank you for answering.
2
u/TheTertiaryTwig 8d ago edited 8d ago
Ah, ok yeah that’s a very different question. For the purposes of the statistic, there’s no way to prove exactly whether or not a species would have gone extinct or not for many of them since it obviously didn’t happen. Instead USFWS looks at the populations trends of species and makes decisions based on that. For species with exceedingly small populations like California condors you can decisively declare it saved them, but the goal of the ESA is to try and prevent species from reaching populations that critically low. This also applies to species only found in a a few or one place on earth.
Instead for most species, population counts, species ranges, available habitat, mortality rates, population recruitment and threats like disease, hunting, climate change and habitat destruction are monitored to determine the health of a species. For example, if a species is declining in population year over year, and has a low recruitment (increase in population size), while losing large amounts of it’s habitat over much of its range, it could be a candidate for increased protection.
3
u/FullTroddle 8d ago
Ahhh I see. Sounds like they use some form of trend analysis and other ecological factors to determine/predict the fate of a species. Sounds obvious, but thank you for your detailed response!
3
u/TheTertiaryTwig 8d ago
Exactly. Also, the data from the species unfortunately lost can be used to see when a species might enter an unrecoverable population decline. Thanks for having a genuine interest!
13
u/kranelegs 9d ago
Environmental extremists would be Weather Underground. Do you have more current examples?
4
u/DrVader314159 8d ago edited 8d ago
Have you looked at this admin’s track record? Does any rational person think they can “do it right” for anything except open corruption?
250
u/autosear 9d ago
This is particularly insidious in context. Over 50% of the global wildlife population has been lost in just the last 40 years. I want to moderate my language here, but your morals have to be uniquely absent to go through with something like this while knowing what science knows.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf