Governors want more say in habitat rule for at-risk wildlife

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


KEITH RIDLER
, Associated Press
Sep. 4, 2020
Updated: Sep. 4, 2020 5:36 p.m.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Governors from 22 Western states and Pacific territories want a bigger say in how the Trump administration defines habitat for wildlife protected under the Endangered Species Act.

The new definition could have implications for how states manage imperiled animals and plants, the Western Governors Association said in a letter Thursday to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The governors insist they are “co-sovereigns with the federal government" and need an equal role in the decision.

The Trump administration is seeking to restrict what land and waterways can be protected as habitat for wildlife facing extinction, one of the latest ways it's sought to roll back environmental safeguards.

The government is trying to redefine what habitat means for the purposes of enforcing the Endangered Species Act, the landmark law that has dictated wildlife protections in the U.S. since 1973. It released a proposed rule in early August.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/article/Governors-want-more-say-in-habitat-rule-for-15544006.php

[Karadeniz]

1. My inclination is to not trust them. I realize anyone would have a more beneficial influence

Than the Trump EPA, but it would probably be better to beef up EPA rather than turn things over to governors.

[2naSalit]

3. +1

[riversedge]

2. good first step by the Governors. But more lawsuits I am sure.

[2naSalit]

4. Sounds like a Trojan Horse to me.

Here's why.

The Endangered Species Act was developed precisely because of governors and their objections to doing the right things when it comes to threatened and endangered species within their state borders. The reasons that we see regularly can serve as proof. One of the best case studies would be the reintroduction of grey wolves to western states. It's long and complex and for ref. see: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wolf-reintroduction-history/

This is a back door effort and give-away to extractive industry - coal, NG, oil, timber, mining and the responsibilities of those industries to not trash the landscape*... in particular, our public lands not to mention the whole biosphere.

This, if I were a consultant on this, would tag it as DOA. No negotiation to such a goal should be allowed to move forward. The best thing is to thwart any movement of this proposal until after January because it has the potential of a nuclear bomb.

ETA: *I forgot to add livestock.

[crickets]

5. 👆 This.

[Kali]

6. livestock (and to some extent timber as well) are not extractive if done right.

can be regenerative in many, many cases.