Just when you thought you'd heard it all.

[IPorange]

that's what zoos are for

I don't see what right strawberry farmers of 2011 have to decide that there will never be that species of fish in the wild ever again for any future generation on this Earth. Seems short-sighted and selfish to me.

 

[BeecherVol]

it's an even worse idea to destroy the livelihood of thousands of people over some silly little fish that occupies a spot in the food chain that's filled with other critters just like it.

I may change my tune if it's found out that the delta smelt minnow secretes an oil that can cure cancer, but then, that would have the anti-vivisection types all up in arms.

If you can put it on a hook and catch another fish it might be worth it.

 

[gsvol]

Once something is gone, it's gone and we'll never know what value it may have had.

If it were actually endangered then build a hatchery and hatch off millions every year and release them into the wild.

Putting tens of thousands of people out of work, driving thousands of American citizens off their land and driving up the price of food for everyone seems a rather steep price to pay for make some alarmists feel good about themselves.

The Goal: Control of land use

The goal is control. In order to control people, the government must control the use of land. Control of the use of land includes control of the use of natural resources. Energy is the fuel that produces prosperity, and the government bureaucracy has decided that it will control access to energy by controlling the use of land and marine resources.

Since the Carter administration, the land management agencies of the federal government have been taken over by environmental extremist organizations...

 

[IPorange]

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying on this, gs-- but there is just so much finality in pushing out a species with such a small and limited range.

I've said this before, but I grew up along the Bruno River in Idaho, where an endangered and endemic species of snail pushed people from using the stream completely. When I was young, we would access the river (no bigger than a creek by Tennessee standards, perhaps 20 feet wide at the widest and rarely more than 4 feet deep) through some friendly ranchers' land, and swim, canoe, fish, dig up freshwater clams and catch crayfish... Wholesome family stuff. But shortly after we moved, many of their ranchers lost their stream-adjacent property and the stretches of the river were completely restricted from recreational or agricultural use.

Was it worth it? I don't know. And I don't know if I ever will, but at the same time, who am I to say that it is worth it to wipe out that creature, for everyone forever?

 

[gsvol]

If you can put it on a hook and catch another fish it might be worth it.

The endangerered species act is one of the most horrendous, disastrous and most abused acts ever passed by congress.

And this administration has been by far the worst ever to use enviro reasons to abuse the American people.

The secretary of the interior who has already been found to be in contempt of a court order now is attempting to completely bypass congress in a dictatorial manner.

GOVERNOR URGES INTERIOR SECRETARY TO WITHDRAW ?WILD LANDS? ORDER | Idaho GOPIdaho GOP

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter is calling on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to immediately withdraw his recent Secretarial Order 3310, which directs the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to treat much of the Idaho acreage under its control as “de facto wilderness.”
-----------------------------------

“Suggesting that current BLM practices favor multiple-use activities over preservation simply ignores the reality that the agency has succumbed to endless bureaucratic recalcitrance, resource constraints and lawsuits by environmental groups,” the Governor wrote. “This order will only exacerbate these problems.”

What sorts of variations in ocean currents? Which currents?


I think there has to be a balance between threatened species and human interests. Once something like the Delta Smelt Minnow is gone, it's gone forever. But I'm sure you don't see any intrinsic value in biodiversity.

Read post #39 for starters.
I believe there is a pdf link to the full report that the EPA is attempting to hide.

Or you could go down to the beach, throw in a rubber ducky and follow in a rowboat and figure it out for yourself.

Thousands of rubber ducks to land on British shores after 15 year journey | Mail Online

I love biodiversity but that doesn't mean I must eschew sanity to do so.

 

[gsvol]

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying on this, gs-- but there is just so much finality in pushing out a species with such a small and limited range.

I've said this before, but I grew up along the Bruno River in Idaho, where an endangered and endemic species of snail pushed people from using the stream completely. When I was young, we would access the river (no bigger than a creek by Tennessee standards, perhaps 20 feet wide at the widest and rarely more than 4 feet deep) through some friendly ranchers' land, and swim, canoe, fish, dig up freshwater clams and catch crayfish... Wholesome family stuff. But shortly after we moved, many of their ranchers lost their stream-adjacent property and the stretches of the river were completely restricted from recreational or agricultural use.

Was it worth it? I don't know. And I don't know if I ever will, but at the same time, who am I to say that it is worth it to wipe out that creature, for everyone forever?

I don't think it is worth it at all when you go to the levels of putting people out of business and raising food costs for everyone.

It isn't easy for Idaho ranchers to find water for their stock and considering the current trend in Washington DC there probably won't be many ranchers left in Idaho when they are done. What they really want is the abolishment of all private property imo.

97% of all species that have ever existed are extinct and that was generally caused by catastropic climate change that had nothing at all to do with mankind.

Adapt or die is the rule of nature.

In the case of the delta smelt, as I have said, if you are worried about thier survival then build a hatchery and hatch them by the millions, the same could go for the Snake River snail and who is to say that fishing and watering stock was harmful to said snail anyway?? It might have been good for them and still there was the option of raising and releasing the snails at a far less cost to everyone concerned.

We enact these draconian knee jerk reactionary policies to allay fears of what 'might happen,' all the agw scare rhetoric is right along those lines and usually the governmental policy is counter productive even if the scare item is and generally they are NOT!

 

[gsvol]

Here is another prime example of knee jerk reactionary
policy to address a problem that only exists in the
minds of the libtards.

Wind Energy, Renewable Energy [Michigan Capitol Confidential]

Understanding wind's unreliability is critically important
now, at a time when America's basic infrastructure is
crumbling and in desperate need of new investment.
In June, the Government Accountability Office issued
a report that said that "communities will need hundreds
of billions of dollars in coming years to construct and
upgrade wastewater infrastructure."

Add in the need for new spending on roads, dams,
bridges, pipelines, and mass transit systems, and
it quickly becomes clear that politicians'
infatuation with wind energy is diverting
money away from projects that are more
deserving and far more important to the
general public.

Trying to replace and increase power production
with wind and solar is sheer idiocy.

Another example is the Shell Alaskan oil project,
after obtaining a lease they have wasted 18
months waiting for final approval from the nutcase
environmentalists at the EPA which will probably
never come and have pulled out of the project.

Drilling those wells in Alaska makes a hell of a lot
more sense to decrease the demand for foreign
oil than the ethanol mandates ever will and what
does the EPA do??? They increase the quota of
ethanol we must use which makes sense on no
level. It doesn't decrease co2 levels, it drives
them up. It doesn't save us money, it costs more.
The worst downside is the ripple affect it has on
world food demand but then probably the marxists
in positions of power in the American government
think that is a good thing because social unrest
can be used to get their types into power in nations
they don't already control.

If these people in the oblahblah administration
were really what they say they are and were
truly concerned with co2 we wouldn't be
exporting 80 million tons of coal annually to
China and that is expected to increase by
10% this year.

The worst thing in the whole equation is that
there are millions of Americans who do no
realize when they are being scammed on the
flimsiest of excuses.

 

[gsvol]