Endangered species act
At the expense of human life and human progress, the Endangered Species Act has been used to prevent the construction of dams, irrigation projects, power plants, housing complexes, highways, and many other essential forms of human development.
No law that places the well-being of animals above the well-being of humans should stand.
This letter has not been edited.
OK, let's let property owners do what they damn well feel like. If the developers get their way, there won't be any jumping mice, because there won't be any grasslands left. There won't be many other forms of wildlife either. Last time I checked, human beings can't photosynthesize or do many other things that bacteria, plants and animals provide us. We're dependent on the ecosystem. So border-to-border ranch houses, concrete, and bluegrass isn't going to cut it. Especially bluegrass that takes 30 inches of water a year in a climate that provides, at best, 15 inches a year. Suburbanites and developers practice their own form of defecit spending. But, let's not tell developers to be sensible with their grass choices.
Posted by peterpi on November 13, 2007 02:54 PMDoes this topic need to be so extreme on these issues? Would it not be prudent for communities and their leadership to allow for the building and expansion of dwellings that will support a healthy ecosystem? Do we need to say if we removed the endangered species act that we would, without regard to conservation, pave every last open space? Is that even practical of a nation with a population of 76 per square mile?
What should be looked at, in my very humble opinion on this topic, is not extremes of both ends, but the expected disruption of the ecosystem should development be allowed. Would the food chain be drastically changed if a certain variation of a popular species is removed? How do we know or not know which evolved from which? By applying the same logic we use on animal species, Neanderthal would still be with us, because we would have assured it's habitat, maybe at the expense of our own existence.
Not everything is an absolute. We should be able to have balance...
Posted by Dan2 on November 13, 2007 03:53 PMYeah, we don't need all animal life. I for one favor the extinction of Republiscum, especially their fat little idiot children.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 08:08 PMhey 8:08 go hug a tree. I favor your kinds extinction. Don't threaten people's children.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 08:23 PM8:08's comment just goes to show the vile hatred the left has now embedded into its party claiming to be moderate. Threatening children is not new but it is still low.
As to the mouse issue. Instead of developers (of which I think the letter writer is) worring about not being able to build. Maybe they should concentrate a little more on building some quality at affordable prices. No longer forceing American workers out of jobs to hire illegals at lower wages to increase thier profiet margins. Haviong worked for iver 20 years in the construction industry I have seen standards drop all in the name of profiet.
In Colorado there is a little loop hole that allows developers and especially the state to bypass endangered species. If they can show and provide alternative living spaces for said animals and plant life then they can go ahead with thier multimillion over priced developments.
Case in point. A wet lands marsh, man made just east of the Genese exit on I-70 on the east bound lanes. Now this is not a natural site but a man made and zoned one.
Posted by The Shadow on November 14, 2007 06:35 AM