Bush Admin: Economic interests are equal to Endangered species.

[L.A.dweller]

Species Protection Act 'Broken'

A top Interior official says the law should be revised to give economic and other interests equal footing with endangered animals and plants.
By Julie Cart, Times Staff Writer

SANTA BARBARA — A senior official of the U.S. Interior Department, in a wide-ranging critique of the Endangered Species Act, said Thursday that the needs of an expanding population, agriculture interests and burgeoning development in the West should be given equal consideration with endangered plants and animals.

Attending an endangered species conference in Santa Barbara, Assistant Secretary of Interior Craig Manson criticized the critical-habitat provision of the law, which limits development in areas favored by threatened species, saying such designations aren't necessary for the perpetuation of many plants and animals.

In an interview before his speech here, Manson said the 30-year-old environmental law is "broken" and should no longer be used to give endangered plants and animals priority over human needs.

"The problem is the act was not written with a great deal of flexibility," he said, adding that the interests of developers and private property owners in some cases should prevail over endangered species

The Bush administration has placed fewer plants and animals on the endangered species list than any other in the act's 30-year history. Bush has listed 20 species since taking office. President Clinton listed 211 during his first three years in office.

More (Requires registration)... http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-species14nov14,1,1435236.story?coll=la-news-environment

[Lorien]

1. Disgusting

voracious greed will be our undoing. How can those who profess to believe in God suggest that His creation is of lesser value than, say, a mini mall? We can't just throw money at a devastated environment, or create "Jurassic Park" if we wipe out species needed to support ecosystems. Who do we contact to counter this latest outrage?

[RandomKoolzip]

2. If this story gets wider coverage, it'll topple Bush. Mark my words.

There is no way anyone in their right mind could agree with that sentiment. And there's far more people who give a shit about the environment than there are talk radio listeners. If the general public heard this, they'd be calling for Bush's head. I'm about to cry, I'm serious. This is the saddest news I've heard in a long time, and the most disgusting, hateful feeling I've ever seen expressed in print....

[dusty64]

13. Like the rest of our regime's

war on the Earth, this will get next to NO coverage. There was nothing about it in my paper, as well as no mention of the bogus 9/11 commission allowing the WH to "edit" the documents they have been stonewalling before the "selected" people can look at them.

[pfitz59]

3. Another Bush* token......

http://www.doi.gov/bio/mansonbio.htm
"He has responsibility for administration and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act."
Doesn't sound like he plans to do much enforcing!

[VolcanoJen]

4. The first inkling of this came back in October...

... in this Washington Post article

U.S. May Expand Access To Endangered Species

and subsequent LBN thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=161348

Thanks for staying on top of this story, L.A. dweller. It's about time we focused more attention on the DOI higher-ups, who have a frightening collective record of being anti-enviroment and pro-polluting corporations.

Read more about why PEER, a service organization representing thousands of land management and wildlife protection agencies (including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Park Service), opposed the nomination of Craig Manson, the man mentioned in the article that kicked off this post:

http://www.peer.org/FedEnforce/Manson_letter.html

Sickened more, every day,
Jennifer :-(

[L.A.dweller]

6. Thanks for the info.

I'll check out the links. This is very troubling but I'm not surprised by it. This admin is so corrupt.

This is similar to the WP article in that it is being released on a Fri and shuffled into the middle/back of the paper.

[katusha]

5. does this include bald eagles?

we gotta harvest those alaskan timbers ya know. can't let those pesky symbols of our nation get in the way of some loggers profits.(sarcasm off)

[Lorien]

7. Hell, these profit crazed whack jobs

want to lift the ban on ivory so they can drive their PARTY'S SYMBOL into extiction! There is no limit to their capacity for stupidity and rampant greed! :grr:

[underpants]

11. All in the name of the all holy dollar

Oh sorry they lubs there Jebus more.......slightly.

For crying out loud there's MONEY TO BE MADE!!!!!!

So much for the responsibility of stewardship that office used to hold.

[xxqqqzme]

53. no...I think they plan 2 save a few

4 circuses & zoos. That's really all U need....

Diversity is not a concept these rat bastards R comfortable or familiar with...in any species!

[LibertyorDeath]

8. Then Assistant Secretary of Interior Craig Manson is a corporate fuck

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. They're using the little property owner as a Trojan Horse.

What they really want to do when they appear to defend the rights of the little property owner, is to give rights to developers which, in time, will eventually overrun the little property owner. So the little guy they claim to be protecting, will probably have a WalMart next to him if he votes Republican. But of course, he doesn't see that because Republicans are all about using people's selfish interest against them.

[underpants]

12. Okay it's time to ask this question -What will we tell the children?

Daddy what happened to the bald Eagles?

Well son the Eagles live in old growth lumber trees and well some people just had to have more money so they cut down the trees and the NATIONAL BIRDs died.

Really?

Yeah and your granddad used to own that land but some of the same people offered him so much money that he couldn't resist so he sold it to them. See it's called capitalism.....

Was that back when you could vote?

Yeah but see they didn't give your grandad enough money to be able to vote when they changed that too.

[Darranar]

10. Ah, slaughter those animals!

Never mind the damage it will do; never mind the loss it will be; never mind the greater ecological consequences for this.

[BeFree]

14. Another Manson murderer

This time in the DOI.
The guy is in the wrong department.
A cold blooded killer like this oughta be working in DOD.

Once again refuting Nader's claims of "No Difference", the pugs henchmen continue the attack on America.

We can also thank the people of Tennessee for not voting to give their electoral college votes to their homeboy, Gore.

I'd sure like to meet this guy sometime. I'd show him what it's like to be endangered.

[annonymous]

15. Just when you think things couldn't get any worse they do.

Gale Norton makes James Watt look tame.

[goforit]

16. I can't help but cry!!!!!!!!!.........These are truely humanity's darkest

When are we going to fight back?

[Lorien]

46. FIGHT BACK!

I mean it! Write about this to your local paper, call a local radio talk show, ask television news stations to cover this! Somewhere around 70% of americans say they consider themselves "environmentalists" (a poll I heard during the ANWR debate, but I doubted before I found out that our local Sierra club was full of repugs :shrug:)if so, this could really be a hot issue for 2004. Write to your candidates and alert them to this story. One of the biggest reasons the far right minority gets ahead is because they are pissed enough to take action. Now WE should be exceeding their efforts!

If you compose a letter to the media, why not post it here to inspire others to do the same? What about "talking points" to use around the water coolers? I know organization goes against a long liberal tradition, but I think it's time to buck that tradition. If we don't try doing things differently, we'll lose everything that was ever worth fighting for.

[Xyxzy34]

17. Should keeping endangered species alive be a goal in itself?

Why?

[young_at_heart]

18. What if YOU happened to be the endangered species?

Your take on this might be different.

[Xyxzy34]

20. Equating animals (and plants) with humans???

I happen to believe that I am worth more than the average endangered plant.

But lets continue your line of thought. If I was an endagered plant, I would think differently. But if I was a common plant, I wouldn't want you to kill me either.

Yet, I would guess that you have, at least a few times in your own life, killed a few plants, either directly or by paying others to kill them for you so that you could eat.

Am I incorrect?

[not systems]

26. You are incorrect.

Often complete ecosystems are required to support an
endangered species. This entire system must be protected
or the species will die off. For instance wetlands
are needed so rare migrating birds can eat.

No wetland no birds.

You on the other hand just need some food from the
supermarket and a place to keep your computer and stuff.

Your personal evaluation of your worth vs endangered
species seems to be a very silly strawman. Do you need
the insect rich wetlands that the migrating bird does?

No you just think piling cash up in a bank should out
weight the right of every person who will ever live to
enjoy, study, and contemplate the endangered species that
you dismiss a less worthy than your own existence.

The future generations will disagree I have no doubt.

A few marginal subdivisions is all we will have at the
cost of the unrecoverable perfection of nature.

[Xyxzy34]

30. I don't care if rare migrating birds die

It just doesn't matter to me in a world where so many humans are starving and getting diseased and dying.

I don't get any pleasure out of seeing some rare bird, but I have no problem with keeping some species alive for the purpose of human enjoyment.

But it shouldn't take precedence over humans. Protecting endangered species should never be an end in itself.

[L.A.dweller]

33. I would agree with you on that

point BUT the Department of Interior is not seeking to solve the problem of hunger and disease. What they are banking on is to build new homes for the rich and wealthy.

[Xyxzy34]

36. Who will build those homes?

Americans who need jobs. And whatever homes those rich people lived in can now be lived in by less rich people.

[L.A.dweller]

43. Were talking about $10 million + homes

Homes are not the only thing to be built of course.

The ironinc thing that occured during the CA wildfires last month was that it was the million dollar homes that were lost first because they are built in what use to be park areas up in the mountains.

[Xyxzy34]

45. If all the millionaires move to better homes, do they burn their old homes

The places the millionaires used to live in will be moved into by less wealthy people, and people with even less money will move into the homes of those people, and so on.

[L.A.dweller]

50. "Less wealthy people"

sorry but the dream of America as being a land of opportunity does not always work out. You have to be extrememly wealthy in order to live where other millionaires do or have lived.

[Xyxzy34]

51. Yes but

Say someone makes a million and moves into a million dollar home. Then someone making half a million can move into the millionaire's home. A family making only 250 thousand can take the half millionaire's home. And so on.

[not systems]

34. We disagree.

The fact that you:

"don't get any pleasure out of seeing some rare bird"

indicates that you are a bitter and joyless person.

Please don't take your hate of nature out on my world.

Your new "humans are starving" strawman also needs an
upgrade. In the US people are not starving they are
eating themselves to death.

The balance you setup of starving and diseased people vs
rare birds is way out there.

Have you every considered that many medicines are extracted
from plants and some of the species you are ready to pave
over for the new Wallmart might hold the key to curing these
diseases you pine about.

[Xyxzy34]

38. I enjoy experiencing nature. But I don't need a rare bird for that

enjoyment.

My "people are starving" argument is only that, we obsess so much on animals when there are people with real problems. That doesn't mean destroying American endangered animals will solve those problems, just that the money and attention we waste with those animals could be better used.

[not systems]

42. Ok.

You donate to the fund for "people with real problems".

I will donate to the fund for rare birds because I
enjoy the diversity of the natural world and don't
want a world where the only things that exist have
passed an economic limus test, will this bird make
me any cash.

People pushing out into every single spot with new
housing tracts is not a good idea.

Look at how much prime farm land has been built on,
if you are worried about the food supply put a stop
to suburban growth in farm land.

[Xyxzy34]

44. You were right about too much food in the USA

We need to build more homes on farmlands, not the other way around, and we would be doing that now if the farms were not supported by taxpayer money.

I agree on the "economic litmus test." What we need is a human litmus test.

As for your natural world diversity, I just hope it doesn't conflict with the livelyhoods of real people.

[mbperrin]

28. Actually, the comparison here is

dollars and plants and animals, not humans.

The market system this admin is so enamored of was invented 400 years ago, and for most of human existence, was unthought of.

So I guess I'll just have to ask: which would you rather eat? A nice big stack of broiled 50 dollar bills marinated in pennies? Or surf 'n turf?

The tradeoff here is dollars and plants/animals. People are not dollars. (They're actually animals, but please for god's sake, keep it quiet, most believe that they are superthings exempt from the laws of nature, energy and existence. The experiment they're doing will prove them wrong, but unfortunately, it will kill me in the process, so greedily, I am agin it!)

[Xyxzy34]

32. Dollars are created by serving people

When land is developed, homes can be built that house real people. Jobs can be created for real people.

[Instant Karma]

37. Your reasoning is a bit faulty in that the manner in which ecosystems

work is synergistic. Every plant and animal in an ecosystem has some hob to do with the survivability of that ecosystem. Many of our lifesaving drugs come from plant souces in those ecosystems, some poorly studied until the last moment.

Whether it be a bird or a worm, they DO have something to do within that ecosystem.

[Xyxzy34]

39. Yes but a more human friendly and less biologically diverse

ecosystem can replace the old with almost no loss to humankind.

Who is studying American ecosystems with the purpose of finding life saving drugs?

[Occulus]

41. I've made this comparison

of another person on this board, but... you sound like my mom.

SHE won't do anything expensive just because it's right, either.

[Xyxzy34]

47. I don't believe it is right.

.

[L.A.dweller]

21. That is a question that Manson asked:

In a recent interview with The Times, Manson questioned the wisdom of extreme efforts to stave off extinction of all species. "If we decide we are going to spend $100 million to save a species we've imperiled, why are we doing that? Are we doing that because it serves human interests to do that? Are we doing that for the exercise of saving something that nature can't take care of … regardless of our efforts? If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is inherently bad — I don't think we know enough about how the world works to say that."

snip -
Conservation groups are highly critical of Manson's stance toward critical habitat, citing the Fish and Wildlife Service's own statistics that show endangered species with critical habitat designation are twice as likely to be improving as species without.

In answer to your question Xyx "why not"?

[Xyxzy34]

22. I agree with him.

Why not? Because the land could be better used to serve human interests.

[L.A.dweller]

23. "You sir are worse than Hitler."

Supervisor at the DMV slaps Homer's face and walks away.

I don't know what to say so I'll resort to humor.

[Xyxzy34]

24. I have to ask you the same quesiton i asked someone else on this thread

Have you ever murdered a plant or animal for any purpose? And paying someone to do it for you is just as bad.

[L.A.dweller]

27. Well, i tend to stay away from eating meat as much as possible.

And the grass is eaten by a cow and the cow is eaten by a human the cycle goes on. But yes i do eat meat sometimes.
However, the grass that the cow feeds off of and the cow itself is NOT an endangered species or endangered fauna. So, what is your point? Are you trying to paint me as someone who murders plants and animals? i guess that i deserve to be called a murderer because i eat meat.
Again cows and grass are not endangered species. The endangered species that we are talking about are now being protected by people that want to make a profit.
We can spend billions on military defense yet we get greedy when it comes to animals and plants that may be extinct in the next ten years.

edit awkward sentence

[Xyxzy34]

We're getting somewhere

So, you don't find much inherent value in species which are not endangered. What is it about endangered species that makes them so much more valuable?

Every day, hundreds of species of animals and plants go extinct. This is not at all a rare occurance. It was happening before humans came into existance and will probably happen long after humans are gone.

[L.A.dweller]

31. Please do some research on endangered

species. Just google it and you'll find out some fascinating info.
Why don't you try this site for starters. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_UW064 I must warn you there is compassion expressed on the site. Something that you may not be to fond of.

How does maintaining biological diversity benefit humanity? It only takes a moment to realize that throughout history plants and animals have provided humans with food, clothing, energy, medicines, and structural materials. Today, solutions to problems in agricultural production in tropical countries, reliance on petrochemicals, and the cures for cancers may lie in organisms not yet discovered. It would be a shame to lose these benefits without even knowing we had them.

If extinction is a natural process, why should we make an effort to save endangered species? Because we can no longer attribute the accelerating extinction of plants and animals to natural causes. Today most species of plants and animals become extinct because of habitat destruction (loss of living space to development or pollution), introduction of non-native organisms, and direct killing (over-harvesting, poisoning).

Benefits of Biological Diversity
How does maintaining biological diversity benefit humanity? It only takes a moment to realize that throughout history plants and animals have provided humans with food, clothing, energy, medicines, and structural materials. Today, solutions to problems in agricultural production in tropical countries, reliance on petrochemicals, and the cures for cancers may lie in organisms not yet discovered. It would be a shame to lose these benefits without even knowing we had them

[Xyxzy34]

35. I have compassion for humans

In response to the article:

Ecotourism- Again, if it is for a human purpose, I have nothing against protecting endangered species.

Agricultural Benefits- We only know what benifits an endangered specie will produce if we actually use time to study it extensively. There are just to many species to spend this time on. We havn't even discovered many tropical species. However, if it is determined that saving an ecosystem has a good chance of solving a human problem in the future, we should keep it.

Unrecognized Benefits- These benefits are not related to endangered species. Floods, for example, are much more common now that concrete has replaced natural lands. But flood prevention and the protection of endangered species are two separate issues, and the methods of solving them are not always the same.

[not systems]

29. What does that have to do with...

you and this Bush hack wanting to pave the world.

Grow up.

That question:

"Have you ever murdered a plant or animal for any purpose?"

Is at the level of teenager having a spat at the lunch room.

What does endangered species protection have to do with food.

Nothing.

Expand your supply of nature hater rhetoric.

Vegetarian baiting and wetlands are different subjects.

[Xyxzy34]

40. If you saw what I was replying to

So far you have not said anything about the inherent value of animals and plants. I would never ask you the question I asked that person.

Look at the rest of the thread. How many are posting about saving ecosystems and how many about saving those poor endangered animals.

[Lorien]

48. Individual species support ecosystems

they are all interconnected. Imagine an automobile; take away the ashtray-who cares? the rear view mirror-no big deal,..but if you keep stipping down that car, piece by piece, eventually you do take away an element that stops the whole thing from running. It's the same with ecosystems. We don't always know what the effects of an extinction will be, but it can't be undone once it happens.Even if you live in a completely selfish bubble, it is still within your best interests to act as a responible steward of the world's life forms.

[Xyxzy34]

49. I've responded to that argument already but not what I was refering to.

young_at_heart wrote: What if YOU happened to be the endangered species?

That isn't about saving ecosystems. What gets most people so emotional isn't saving ecosystems. It's about saving those poor cute little birds.

[young_at_heart]

52. Wow! Your question and mine back to you caused a stir

I answered your question with a question because of the arrogance I perceived on your part. It was because you seemed to be so lacking in compassion that I felt compelled to ask such an "out there" question.

[Xyxzy34]

54. It is true that I don't have compassion for animals

I'd rather be compassionate towards humans. The only purpose of my question to your question was to show how hypocritical it is to condemn others for killing plants and animals when we do the same.

[Lorien]

56. How limited your heart is

Most of us have room for compassion for BOTH-where is it written that it's an either/or proposition? Most great humanitarians of our age were also champions of animal rights. Do you know why animal abuse is taken so seriously by law enforcement in most areas? It's because psychologists have found a strong correlation between contempt for animal life and contempt for humanity. Jeffery Dahmer started out on animals-then moved on to human prey.

[Xyxzy34]

57. It is either/or when animals are competing with humans

.

[Lorien]

55. Bullshit. What gets people emotional

is concern for our own survival and the unknown. Thinking people, that is. If you are informed about issues like the 'barren lands" occuring throughout the midwest, China, and South America, then you understand how species extinction or removal can eventually lead to human extinction. If there's no way to produce food in an area, and that condition is ever increasing, where does that lead us? "pretty birds' provide droppings as fertilizer and process seeds that would not otherwise germinate. So do not-so-pretty-bats, that ingest larger seeds and are responsible for vast tracts of forests thoughout South America. We need both to sustain ourselves and all other life on the planet. Scientists recently championed the return of wolves to yellowstone NOT because wolves are a great tourist attraction, but because they had discovered how essential the top preditors are to that ecosystem, right down to the macrobiotic level. Trees in the Pacific Northwest contain salmon proteins because of bear and other preditor droppings in the forests-it is essential to their growth. So yes, it IS about eco systems to a good many of us!

[gate of the sun]

19. economic issues

are allways first with Bush :especially when it is going to make one of his friends rich.

[mbperrin]

25. Now HERE's progress!

For the Bushistas to admit that plants and animals have any value at all compared to dollars is a TRIUMPH!

Formerly, they believed that ALL that mattered was DOLLARS!

[TahitiNut]

58. This thread is disrupted beyond redemption.

Thus, I'm locking it.

A word to the wise ...

                     +----------------+
                     |     PLEASE     |
                     |   DON'T FEED   |
                     |   THE TROLLS!  |
                     +----------------+
                            |  |  
                            |  |  
                            |  |  
                         .,\|/\|/,.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator