Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The sage grouse is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the ESA. Listing a species as threatened requires no scientific evidence, just enough signatures on a petition. anyone who thinks the sage grouse is threatened is smoking crack. Still, now that it's listed, oil, gas, grazing, and mining activities are vastly more expensive, if possible at all, because of the red tape introduced by the grouse listing. This doesn't have anything to do with protecting species and everything to do with radicals using the ESA to control land that is often held privately.

Your understanding of the ESA could use some polishing. The listing of a species is based on science and takes years to work through the process. The Sage grouse, despite facing a 95+% of its historic numbers, is not listed as either a threatened or an endangered species. The Gunnison Sage grouse is currently being considered by USFWS for listing.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

What is my take?

Probably that this has nothing to do with turtles. Tortoises on the other hand...

[byu71]

I specifically asked you and you responded. I was just curious how you knew my take when I don't recall posting it.

You pretty much side with the "progessives", I pretty much side with the "conservative" point of view.

Perhaps you can enlighten me though with, "I shouldn't be surprised with your take". Was that meant as a positive addendum, neutral or coupled with "screw the animals" was it meant to be a negative comment on my opinion?

Perhaps you could have just stated your take and not put me in some kind of , hey, guess what I think game.

Granted, that might take the fun out of the experience.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You pretty much side with the "progessives", I pretty much side with the "conservative" point of view.

Perhaps you can enlighten me though with, "I shouldn't be surprised with your take". Was that meant as a positive addendum, neutral or coupled with "screw the animals" was it meant to be a negative comment on my opinion?

Perhaps you could have just stated your take and not put me in some kind of , hey, guess what I think game.

Granted, that might take the fun out of the experience.

I know a local politician who was running for office a few years ago. I attended a debate and the issue of "the environment" came up. His opponent gave a great take on the issue and then it was his turn. He basically said, "I think the environment is really important and should be protected. But when it comes between humans and the environment, I will side with humans every single time." I was embarrassed for him as it was such a ridiculous answer. There is always a cost associated with protecting the environment. Otherwise it is called "doing nothing".

I think I explained my response to your position. It seems that your threshold is that losing the species must be worse than the worst environmental disaster in modern US history. If that is the case, then I can't imagine a single scenario where you would opt to protect a species. Correct me if I misunderstood you.

Personally, I think we should be extremely reluctant to allow species to go extinct. However, there has to be some balance in the process but finding that balance is tough. The current system does not make distinctions between species (all are treated with the same value). Might be time to revisit that. For example, there are 350,000 beetle species compared to 4000 mammal species. Might not make sense to spend a billion dollars to save a beetle.

[byu71]

I know a local politician who was running for office a few years ago. I attended a debate and the issue of "the environment" came up. His opponent gave a great take on the issue and then it was his turn. He basically said, "I think the environment is really important and should be protected. But when it comes between humans and the environment, I will side with humans every single time." I was embarrassed for him as it was such a ridiculous answer. There is always a cost associated with protecting the environment. Otherwise it is called "doing nothing".

I think I explained my response to your position. It seems that your threshold is that losing the species must be worse than the worst environmental disaster in modern US history. If that is the case, then I can't imagine a single scenario where you would opt to protect a species. Correct me if I misunderstood you.

Personally, I think we should be extremely reluctant to allow species to go extinct. However, there has to be some balance in the process but finding that balance is tough. The current system does not make distinctions between species (all are treated with the same value). Might be time to revisit that. For example, there are 350,000 beetle species compared to 4000 mammal species. Might not make sense to spend a billion dollars to save a beetle.

You misunderstood me and I don't want to get into a debate whether you did misunderstand me or not.

I am hurt though that you think my threshold based on what I said is "that losing the species must be worse than the worst environmental disaster in human history". If I thought you were that stupid to come up with that conclusion, it would be one thing. I know you are not though and so your intent was to belittle me and try to make me look like an idiot.

That really hurt. I won't be interacting with you the rest of the day.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You misunderstood me and I don't want to get into a debate whether you did misunderstand me or not.

I am hurt though that you think my threshold based on what I said is "that losing the species must be worse than the worst environmental disaster in human history". If I thought you were that stupid to come up with that conclusion, it would be one thing. I know you are not though and so your intent was to belittle me and try to make me look like an idiot.

That really hurt. I won't be interacting with you the rest of the day.

Oh I am sorry. When you said this:

Certainly I would. I would listen to the arguments from either side. I would then make my decisiion based on things I could quantify. For example if it could be proven that having the Turtle go extinct would ruin the habitat and make create the makings of a situation like happened in Oklahoma in I think the 30's, I would say let's save them.

I assumed you were talking about the Dust Bowl. Were you referring to something else?

[byu71]

Oh I am sorry. When you said this:



I assumed you were talking about the Dust Bowl. Were you referring to something else?

So we are going to take words and then make them not figurative, but they have to be taken literally.

Well, I googled Worst US man made environmental disasters. Dust bowl came up 4 on someone's list and I don't really give a shit if it is number 1 on your list. Then you interpret me saying losing a species must be "worse" than the worst (your opinion) environmental disaster. Exact words were "like a situation". How does like become "worse".

I know how, you are the king of telling people what they said and what they meant. Go play with a 3rd grader. I seriously am not doing this little game any more today.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So we are going to take words and then make them not figurative, but they have to be taken literally.

Well, I googled Worst US man made environmental disasters. Dust bowl came up 4 on someone's list and I don't really give a shit if it is number 1 on your list. Then you interpret me saying losing a species must be "worse" than the worst (your opinion) environmental disaster. Exact words were "like a situation". How does like become "worse".

I know how, you are the king of telling people what they said and what they meant. Go play with a 3rd grader. I seriously am not doing this little game any more today.

Ah... So you were talking about the Dust Bowl.

Feel free to amend your response and clarify. Don't be such a big baby.

[cowboy]

Here are the official rules:

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-l...df/listing.pdf

I meant to write that no evidence is needed to make a petition but I was in a hurry. You are right that scientific evidence is required to actually list a species as endangered. There is a difference, however, between biological evidence and scientific data. A variety of biological evidence that has little or no ties to the survival of the species can be used to qualify a petition for consideration. For example, having traditional habitat disturbed may or may not affect a species' survival, but it is certainly enough to qualify a petition. Whether a species is listed or not, the damage is done once it becomes a candidate species, as all commercial and agricultural activity is bogged down by having to go through an impact assessment every time a new activity is proposed.

The Sage grouse, despite facing a 95+% of its historic numbers, is not listed as either a threatened or an endangered species. The Gunnison Sage grouse is currently being considered by USFWS for listing.

The sage grouse is, however, a candidate species, and that alone is costing oil, gas, and grazing millions of dollars. You and I are never going to agree. I think you're a (loveable) tree-hugging commie who values the Delta Smelt more than a $15-billion industry that feeds millions of people. You probably see me as a greedy, ignorant redneck who wants to denude the range and have my cows fill the pristine rivers with crap. We're likely both wrong (well, you are, anyway.) I don't have a problem with protecting endangered species, but I do have a problem with the way people use the rule. It's morphed from a law used to bring species back from the brink of extinction to a law that brings a timber industry to its knees in the Northwest, or stops oil exploration in Alaska, or coal mining in Colorado, despite the fact that none of those activities would have affected the survival of any species used as an excuse to stop them. Out of curiosity, how has the tortoise fared in the last 20 years on Bundy's ranch? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that we can't prove that the cattle have had an effect one way or the other.

[Green Monstah]

The sage grouse is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the ESA. Listing a species as threatened requires no scientific evidence, just enough signatures on a petition. anyone who thinks the sage grouse is threatened is smoking crack. Still, now that it's listed, oil, gas, grazing, and mining activities are vastly more expensive, if possible at all, because of the red tape introduced by the grouse listing. This doesn't have anything to do with protecting species and everything to do with radicals using the ESA to control land that is often held privately.

Every hear of the Lesser Prairie Chicken (It's similar to the Greater Prairie Chicken...only smaller)?

That little bird is causing me all sorts of problems right now (just listed as Threatened).

[cowboy]

Every hear of the Lesser Prairie Chicken (It's similar to the Greater Prairie Chicken...only smaller)?

That little bird is causing me all sorts of problems right now (just listed as Threatened).

Yeah. I'm not generally a tinfoil hat wearer, but I honestly think the left is using the ESA in a concerted effort to cripple the oil and gas industry.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Yeah. I'm not generally a tinfoil hat wearer, but I honestly think the left is using the ESA in a concerted effort to cripple the oil and gas industry.

It's not working very well then.

[cowboy]

It's not working very well then.

If they succeed in listing the sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken, even though neither of those species are threatened with extinction, it will be quite effective.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's not working very well then.

Yep.

US = energy independent since 2011.

Natural gas at an all-time high. Crude oil on a very sharp climb.

I will leave it to Uncle Ted to comment on how this makes Texas awesome.

[wally]

It's morphed from a law used to bring species back from the brink of extinction to a law that brings a timber industry to its knees in the Northwest, or stops oil exploration in Alaska, or coal mining in Colorado, despite the fact that none of those activities would have affected the survival of any species used as an excuse to stop them. Out of curiosity, how has the tortoise fared in the last 20 years on Bundy's ranch? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that we can't prove that the cattle have had an effect one way or the other.

This is spot on. It has become extremely combative and derisive. It is almost like man must be punished for his original sin of existence as far as mother nature is concerned. The most endangered species of all is the pragmatic environmentalist.

There is also a regime shift going on in ranks of the state agencies (at least the ones that I deal with) as seems the problem-solving oriented old-guard retire and are replaced by younger types who seem to only be bent on compliance, not solving the problems. They also seem to be deathly afraid of being sued by the environmental interest groups. If an environmental interest group files suit and wins, they share in any fine revenue, from what I understand, so why not gum up the system? There would appear to be literally nothing to risk and everything to gain.