How much land for endangered species?

[Calif. Hunter]

Not for our favorite species to hunt, but for various bugs, plants, amphibians, etc. What do you think? While the author seems to think it is not enough, 42 million acres still seems like a lot. How much has already been set aside?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5287000/

 

[Washington Hunter]

The more the better. Doesn't matter what species they are saving a particular area for, it's going to benefit many species, whether they are reptiles, amphibians, birds, or mammals. And, the more habitat saved from development the more land we as hunters will have to hunt. Some may see the Endangered Species Act as a ridiculous law and a waste of money, but anything that protects wildlife habitat is a good thing and a benefit to hunters.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Oooops. Looks like I posted another "repeat" of a previous post. Oak has already posted this article in "Dubya: Protecting Critical Habitat Not Worth it."

Sorry.....

 

[Oak]

I guess it all depends on how you define "critical". That 42 million acres sounds like a lot, but if it's not what a certain species uses, it does that species little good. I suspect that eventually the less aesthetic will lose out. I don't think we're ever going to see a net reduction in the amount of disturbance we cause. The way we're going, every acre will eventually be considered "critical" habitat for some species. Once those less desirable species begin to lose out, we'll begin to better understand what the word "ecosystem" means.

Oak

 

[Nut]

Between 2001 and 2003, the government cut 42 million acres from plans to create nearly 83 million acres of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, a federation found.

So that means less than half are still on the board to be considered. Betcha none gets approved without a legal challenge.