Well over 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Our turn is coming.
U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
191–200 of 243 posts
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absolutely changed that much in since the 80s. For humans? Not that much. For tiny animals and bugs? Small change is massive change.
It seems like there were a lot more bugs that would get splattered on cars in the 90s than they do now.
That’s almost entirely aerodynamics. I recently drove a boxy truck from the 90s on the same stretch I’ve driven bug-free and had a deja vu from how bug-splattered the windshield was.
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it became a NWR, then the government eventually took/ acquired it from him (or his successor). The details of how that happened, whether it was their choice, and how they were compensated for it are what matter. But it sounds like he at least got to harvest his timber first, as far as not being interfered with.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. Above, you made some speculative claims that the endangered species caused the property owner to experience increased hardship in using their land. Research in this thread that others have done has shown that wasn’t the case, and yet you persist in pitching speculatively that perhaps they had their property taken away. What is the statement you’re trying to make, a…
The increased hardship for landowners post 1973 is fact. The endangered species act turns affected land into a liability instead of being an asset.
The original response was that if they were able to enjoy the use of their land before 1973, then there was no harm done.
1) Which doesn't mean the harm/hardship didn't come into play in 1973 once the law was passed. It did. The land would have lost significant value overnight by being declared endangered species habitat.
2) The research showed that the land is now, in fact, a National Wildlife Refuge. The government acquired it. That rarely happens in a fully voluntary way with full compensation, but I don't claim to know the circumstances here.
3) My speculation was merely that harm could have also been done before 1973, which has been turned into somewhat of a straw man.
3b) And I only included that speculation because it's applicable to the state of affairs today, because if the same thing happens to any generic landowner post-1973, it's no longer speculation. Your property value becomes significantly diminished.
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
The incentive is to kill/not-kill the animals, not necessarily protect the habitat. The only fix I can see is making it a worthwhile rational decision: incentives for reporting endangered animals that are worth more than the value in developing the property. But that has it's own pitfalls and potentials for abuse.
> The incentive is…not necessarily to protect the habit Except many of the incentives explicitly state the goal is to protect habitat. “How does a CCA or CCAA help species? These voluntary agreements reduce or remove identified threats to a species. Examples of beneficial activities include measures for restoring or enhancing habitat, expanding or establishing habitat…” https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/…
The land owner's incentive to be a bad vs good actor.
There aren't maps of some universal truth as to what habitat is protected for what species.
Many habitats aren't "known" and made protected until the endangered animal is actually discovered, on-site.
The land owner has incentive to prevent that discovery from happening, and therefore has incentive to kill the animals before they can be discovered on his property.
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now. The endangered species act wasn't enacted until 1973, so I think that landowner had plenty of opportunity to do what he wanted with his property.
That's not really a fair comparison/ justification. I don't know how much "warning" was given for the endangered species act, or if that even matters, since land that's about to be worthless is already worthless. Also, I have no idea what actually happened in this case. But to speculate/generalize: IBW were already (obviously) extremely rare in 1944, so there would have been an intense amount of pressure preventing h…
Government isnt there to protect every business from ever going out of business. Sorry but I dont see the argument for compensation. By your argument everyone who has planning controls changed in their neighbourhood should be paid out, tobacco companies should be paid for revenue loss due to taxation and government adverts and anyone with a house built next to them should sue their neighbour for overshadowing and traffic noise. Sorry but its unworkable. Its simply the risks of doing business.
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#196Scientists have a recording of the mating call of the last known Kauaʻi ʻōʻō that could never be answered. https://youtu.be/5THqAY3u5oY?t=44 "That's the last male of a species... singing for a female, who will never come.... he is totally alone.... and now his voice is gone." I find that to be very sad
This was incredibly moving. Thanks for sharing.
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. But what gets really interesting is re-introduction of endangered species, like with sandhill cranes being re-introduced to Louisiana (transplants from other surviving populations). Is government introduction of an endangered species on/near pr…
>considered a "taking" under the constitution, or should it be? Perhaps, but you'd also have to consider Euclidian zoning to be a taking. And that'll never happen.
Not especially- because generally whenever zoning is enacted, the current land owner gets to decide the initial zone of their property.
And land that is already zoned can't be rezoned without the current property owners consent.
So the only thing restricted / "taken" here, is if the property owner wants a re-zoning and is denied.
Yeah, being forced into the system at all is arguably a violation of rights, but I don't think requiring the land to be used in a consistent way (of the owners initial choosing) is at all comparable to not being allowed to use the land.
The owner never consents to endangered species restrictions. For zoning they do.
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a kid, I loved the monarch migration that came through our mountain community. Thousands and thousands of them. Then hundreds. Then dozens. Then lucky to see a single one.
I see so many monarchs Then man fails his role No longer do I see them
Is this from somewhere? Interesting 7-5-7 syllables per line, like an inside-out haiku.
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#199From the standpoint of understandig molecular biology and evolution, this is just basically burning the Library of Alexandria to keep yourself warm for a few days. This is unique information being lost forever.
Many of these species were considered done for by the time they were listed. The tools we have to rehabilitate our ecology from the brink of near total destruction really only came online in the late 60s through the 70s and it's taken time for them to be effective, but they have been in a lot of ways, whether it is the ESA, CWA, NEPA, etc.
[deleted]
Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments like that suggest no such thing. There is plenty of middle ground, including restrictions on corporate election donations, and generally limiting corporate lobbyists access to our legislators.
Again, you're saying government control won't have these problems. Socialist governments produced tremendous environmental problems because even though the government consisted solely of altruistic, self-sacrificing, dedicated, incorruptible administrators, the people still needed food, clothing, and washing machines. And the government would try to provide them, rather than face mass starvation.
It's ironic that in tarring all forms of "government" with the same brush, conservatives who lackadaisically compare the actions of multi-party democratic governments to those of single-party states minimize the importance of what was probably the most important structural difference between the Eastern Bloc and Western democracies. Eisenhower would be horrified.