I can’t believe all the negative rhetoric that comes out after a federal government agency makes a simple change to a law. The federal agencies make decisions to improve laws for everybody and activist groups go berserk. Perhaps that’s their job, and what they are required to do. But a rational mind might just think things through a bit. We all have our special interest groups and believe me there are far too many. We give them money and they represent our cause, regardless if it’s reasonable or not.
The Trump administration has been working to alter many of the environmental laws passed in the 1970s and make them more reasonable and workable. The Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water and Clean Air Act were wise laws created by our Congress, back in the ’70s. Those laws have made the environment much cleaner. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 was a good idea but poorly implemented and managed. The Endangered Species Act has become problematic for everyone trying to earn a living with natural resources. After 50 years the intended outcomes of these laws have migrated into other unintended outcomes.
Just last week the Trump administration, with agency help, changed a few rules on the ESA law. It was a great feat that three areas of the ESA law were changed. Very simple and logical issues were changed for public benefit. Like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s blanket rule, which treated threatened and endangered species the same. Why do they need to be treated the same when they are two separate classifications? Does one deserve priority over the other?
The other small tweak was in critical habitat designations, which can hamstring thousands of acres of private and public land from development. The agency must first evaluate land that contains the at-risk species before considering new, unoccupied areas because it could—with alterations—become suitable habitat, even if the species has never been documented to have lived in the area.
And of course, “Climate Change” is a new criterion for selecting endangered species. The new rule defines the term “foreseeable future” to mean the government can “reasonably determine” a danger of extinction. This will make it difficult for activists to use claims of vague future climate damage to declare many species endangered. There was also a portion of the new rules that would allow economic concerns as a consideration in the endangered decision-making process, but not a requirement.
These changes were small but put the ESA back on a more reasonable path to being effective and giving priority to the most endangered species. And placing small limitations on those ESA determinations.
Gauging the reaction from the environmental activist groups you would think the sky is falling and their hair is on fire, and it’s the end for mankind. There really are people who think the world, as we know it, will end in 12 years, aka the “Green New Deal.” Activists promote fear and greed to earn their living and a little tug on the heartstring goes a long way. They rely on honest ignorance of complex issues to survive. I still can’t figure out how they get standing in the courts.
These groups of people want to stop economic development and prosperity in the U.S. These activist attorneys are anti-growth. Have you ever seen an attorney, especially from an environmental group, build something? Their job is to destroy progress. The ESA law has been the most destructive law ever developed and it’s the environmentalists’ weapon of choice. There is no real, on the ground, conservation work done here. All they know how to do is litigate to destroy.
All these environmental groups have chosen to halt economic progress and create war with economic development. They work with polls and surveys of citizens as the justification for their cause. If Americans would take the time to understand an issue before they take some political action, it would save a lot of time, money and heartache. Honest ignorance is alive and well in the U.S.
People have become so far removed from the lands that give us life, liberty, and prosperity, they don’t understand what it’s like to earn a living farming, ranching or harvesting timber and minerals. Every consumer product starts from the land’s resources. Most folks in this country don’t realize that conservation and reclamation are the core values of making your living on the land.
There has been enough fighting over perceived environmental issues. The resources expended to guide government decisions is astounding. Congress would do better if they made laws less ambiguous and established clear definitions of outcomes. When they write loose law, they create problems. These folks are politicians and their constituents guide them with honest ignorance on issues and it’s not their fault. They have no reason to know. — PETE CROW
