559-286-7795
facebook twitter you tube
 

Newsletter

 

Endangered Sanity!

If protecting an endangered species will cause economic harm to a community, they have a right to take that into consideration.

Aug 14, 2019

If you read the headlines about changes made to the Endangered Species Act, you'd think only an insane madman could advocate these things:

California Attorney General Promises Suit Over Endangered Species Rollback, 

Endangered Species: Trump admin rolls out rule changes to limit law’s reach

U.S. Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act

Trump weakens Endangered Species Act; California promises to put up a fight

‘We’re ready to fight’: Wildlife activists vow to protect Endangered Species Act from Trump

Trump overhauls endangered species protections

As Scientists Warn of Biodiversity Crisis, Trump Administration Guts Endangered Species Act

Who Benefits from Endangered Species Rollback? Big Polluters

Democrats, environmentalists blast Trump rollback of endangered species protections,  

Editorial: Trump guts the Endangered Species Act. Polar bears and bald eagles, take notice 


 

What horrible thing was done?  What did Trump do to kill off endangered species?  "The regulations call for greater emphasis on economic impact analysis, even as environmental groups note the law forbids anything except science from influencing a listing decision."  All that means is that if protecting an endangered species will cause economic harm to a community, they have a right to take that into consideration.  Is that so terrible?  

Remember, when environmentalists de-watered the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to protect the Delta Smelt, there could be no consideration of how this economically impacted farmers and cities in our Valley.  That would now be part of the equation on how to proceed.  We think that's a good thing.  

The new rules will also stop environmentalists from predicting future endangered species based on climate change speculation.  The predictions of climate change advocates have been widely off the mark and there's no reason to think they would be any more accurate with their endangered species predictions.
  

Not only are these changes based on common sense, we would argue there should have been yet another change.  We would like to require environmental water releases be held to the same standards for efficiency and accountability as required of urban and agricultural uses.  Water is a public resource and should not be wasted by any user. So, if an environmental water release is not accomplishing the task for which it is being released, then it should be made available to the other water users so it may be beneficially used for society.

Can environmentalists show that even one delta smelt has benefited from their policies? If there are no specific goals, how do we know if we've met them?

Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.

helpdonate
helpdonate