WA: “Who determines whether or not a species is “endangered”? History has shown that of the species listed, many should never have been listed. Once listed, the task of removing is remotely successful.”
C_O: “Endangered species should be treated economically as the assets that they are with a risk of loss priced actuarially.”
WA: “We still have a need to designate whether a species is endangered, threatened, or otherwise. The method employed for that task is broken; it has not evolved with us and the continued use of that method will continue to kill fire fighters trapped on a hillside, will continue to hold back water for farmers who require it to manage their own species of corn, alfalfa, beans, or cattle, to feed to that other neglected species, mankind. At the same time, a “risk of loss” premises a kind of science that would be better employed openly, with the animating contest of freedom, with dialogue among knowledgeable parties, all parties, as it should be, with built in checks and balances. The trend of ESA action is closed to any kind of dialogue, due in part to the lack of what HR2829/HR3705 are attempting to give to the process.”
C_O: “Census data should be private property as certified by an insured third party.”
WA: “And who determines the third party? HR 2829 and HR 3705 help define the intent of the ESA by addressing the process and parameters of listing a species. The idea that census data should be private property has frightful connotations considering the approach to property that has been used. Classifying census data (I assume you mean the numbers of a species, endangered/threatened or otherwise) as property is like building imaginary borders, staking out territory, that is only respected by man, not by the subject of the census, the species. This statement that you own sounds dangerously like the concern of the environmentalist and those charged with protecting an endangered species—I believe that now the whereabouts of a vulnerable species is classified, the file kept in the Holy of Holies—to guard against nefarious butterfly collectors, prairie grass embezzlers intent on wreath-making, and pharmaceutical entrepreneurs looking for Indiana bat wings to brew aphrodisiacs for the international market.
C_O: “I'll bet you think you came here to announce what we were to support and watch us line up like the great unwashed.”
WA: “Actually, I was hoping for a circular unruly mob, as opposed to an orderly line, to gather at the River. Which is why I made the inquiries at the individual state’s sites, before nailing my Broadside to this forum. Maybe you didn’t see it? I’m sure I visited the California site yesterday in my politicking—I think I’m getting the hang of the vernacular. I’ve been visiting here long enough to know that even a quorum is unlikely. And what is really disturbing is knowing there has been a virtual roll call of proposed bills now dusty with time that have tried to change something that soiled itself years ago.”
WA: “Who determines whether or not a species is “endangered”? History has shown that of the species listed, many should never have been listed. Once listed, the task of removing is remotely successful.”
Ya know, without having read any of the bills you're promoting--but rather going on your attitude--are you friggin suggesting that fedfov have any part of a say in what is 'endangered', 'threatened', or 'over-filled'? After they have shown their propensity for featheringfurring their own nest?
Or that an NGO should have any say--they live off fedgov and UNgov!!
You really remind me of some county commissioners I dealth with in Montana, and their Planning Board--they act like land owners/producers just run around looking for ways to s**t in their own nest! Or that sunshine has to be piped in to them!