Posted on 07/01/2019 11:06:05 AM PDT by rktman
Full Header:
Alaska Senator: We Can’t Build ‘a Simple Road’ Without ‘Radical Extreme Environmental Groups’ Suing Us
Members of Congress who claim that building “a simple road” in his state will harm wildlife, like the porcupine caribou, “don’t know what they’re talking about,” Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan (R) told CNSNews.com in an exclusive interview last Wednesday.
“No offense to my colleagues here, but they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Sen. Sullivan said. “There was this notion that the porcupine caribou herd was going to be hurt by a road - that’s literally absurd. That was the big thing that everyone was saying when we built the trans-Atlantic pipeline system and the caribou herd increased four-fold.”
“So, a lot of this, unfortunately, I think is driven by their desire to fundraise and environmental groups’ desire to fundraise off this kind of stuff, so it’s a never-ending battle,” Sullivan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Roads in general terms.
Talking points from the Joe Biden handbook?
so I was thinking about this the other day....i’d like to hear from someone who knows how this actually works. and if I misspeak, please forgive me.
but as I understand it....there is an Endangered Species Act, duly passed by Congress and signed by the President. Alas.
But that statute has a going forward basis where the EPA gets to declare certain species as endangered? And then industry/ag/real estate developers/everyone has to work around their declarations?
Is that correct?
If so....I just don’t see how this is even constitutional because unless there are real limits to what can be declared as endangered, we are leaving it up to the discretion of unelected and anonymous bureaucrats who will always have an agenda which is not transparent. This is basically unfettered power in the hands of the government.
I also don’t see how in some instances this declaration does not constitute an “administrative taking”. I guess there’s no home for that concept in current Constitutional doctrine...but when people lose important rights based upon governmental action, it should be the case that they are justly compensated according to FMV. This would also at least sort of impose a bit of cost benefit analysis on the EPA, which I don’t think they really have.
Is that how this actually works? Anyone knowledgeable in the facts?
lol
I’d say the senator got it right, honestly
only a reporter could worry about the caribou impact for the transatlantic pipeline. Oh, the humanity! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
ML/NJ
Same leftists tactics as alway, bankrupting and murdering those who disagree.
Being an outdoors person for most of my life which is a long time. I would expect the Caribou to react the same way they did to the trans Alaska pipeline, they would use it and follow it where it made their migration easier and ignore it where it didn’t.
Hmmmm. Caribou smarter than certain contestants seen on stage last week.
the porcupine caribou ???
LOL
That must have been some painful date for the parent caribou
:)
I have personally witnessed massive herds of Arctic Caribou crossing under pipelines, sleeping under oilfield buildings in the first shade they had ever experienced in their miserable existence, and walking down the Spine Road since it was easier than walking on the tundra. Environmentalists can go to hell.
Change the provisions in the law that gives the their cost of litigation and legal fees.
Take away their cash flow and make them pay the costs out of pocket and you will see the lawfare stop.
Likely related to the Western Jackalope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.