Changes to ESA rules

[TOGIE]

Concern without merit - as in examples or evidence - is what exactly?

without merit in your opinion. you simultaneously can't prove to me that this change won't ever produce harm. so your lack of concern is based on....? seems to me it's likely a tribalistic or maybe simply a "not their take" take, at this point.

all i have to go on are the words of the administration. those words don't jive with what little i know about wildlife biology, so i'm gonna remained concerned about the rule change. if i'm truly misconstruing those words i'll revisit my take.

i think we'll all find this moot as it realistically might not be able to muster itself past legal challenges.

 

[Forkyfinder]

without merit in your opinion. you simultaneously can't prove to me that this change won't ever produce harm. so your lack of concern is based on....?

Its strange you invoke tribalism - when i asked for data to change my mind?

I havent endorsed the change, or said i outright supported it once in the thread, because i dont. I am skeptical of the alleged certain negative impacts - especially with the landscape and critters i know. Id rate it as slightly better than neutral for them, only in terms of impact. Not wording or taking this to definitionally mean caring "less" about habitat.

Again - thats why i specifically wanted to see examples of where this is overtly going to cause damage or where it has historically prevented damage.

 

[TOGIE]

Its strange you invoke tribalism - when i asked for data to change my mind?

I havent endorsed the change, or said i outright supported it once in the thread, because i dont. I am skeptical of the alleged certain negative impacts - especially with the landscape and critters i know. Id rate it as slightly better than neutral for them, only in terms of impact. Not wording or taking this to definitionally mean caring "less" about habitat.

Again - thats why i specifically wanted to see examples of where this is overtly going to cause damage or where it has historically prevented damage.

i think the comments about screeching and tribalism started with you?

just returning the favor.

the words on their face in the rule seem like something that could absolutely be applied in an ways that are negative to wildlife. i personally think it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. so i find the rule concerning.

it's fine to disagree. not that we necessarily do?

i think many are well founded in their extreme skepticism of this administration on matters of wildlife and public lands. it's not humble or mature discourse to auto reduce those concerns to tribalism every time.