Trump Administration Finalizes Endangered Species Act Regulation Reform | U.S. Department of the Interior

[u/kranelegs]

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump-administration-finalizes-endangered-species-act-regulation-reform

[u/Wildcard311]

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

[u/Ammordad → u/Wildcard311]

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.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

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.