The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”

[pianoman9701]

It's not a "scam." That's all I will say. Some of you need your tin foil hats.   

It's got nothing to do with tin foil hats. It's got to do with the act being used to forward private agendas. That was not the purpose of the original Act. It was supposed to protect and when possible, restore endangered and threatened animal populations. It's being used by extreme greenies to do a whole lot more. I don't believe that the ESA is a scam. I believe its use by certain specific groups (DOW, HSUS, PETA, etc.) to forward their agenda is, however.

[WAcoyotehunter]

If the predators were controlled then there would be no need for the the ESA. And WDW&wolves would be WDGF!

Yes, we all know that predation is the only cause of decline in a species.    

I think JLS was being generous in estimating your IQ.

habitat loss.... as difficult as it is for some folks on here to comprehend, wildlife needs a place to live.  The ESA details habitat protection for that purpose. 

[buckfvr]

In my life time, I can honestly say I have witnessed great amounts of habitat loss from human encroachment.  That is the main pertinent factor in most of the changes Ive noticed since the late 60s early 70s. 

With human encroachment into most , if not all winter ranges of our wildlife, conflicts are to be expected. 

But with that, I would say introduction of predators and the soft management of predators will only be the root of many more problems going forward in time.

Its all about agendas.........so many agendas, so many people in need of a cause.

Did I mention, so many people ??   Like way too many.

[bobcat]

It's not a "scam." That's all I will say. Some of you need your tin foil hats.   

It's got nothing to do with tin foil hats. It's got to do with the act being used to forward private agendas. That was not the purpose of the original Act. It was supposed to protect and when possible, restore endangered and threatened animal populations. It's being used by extreme greenies to do a whole lot more. I don't believe that the ESA is a scam. I believe its use by certain specific groups (DOW, HSUS, PETA, etc.) to forward their agenda is, however.

Well, I simply don't agree that it has to do with "agendas." What it has to do with is protecting certains species and their habitat so they don't become extinct. I agree some of those species it may be arguable whether they're worthy of saving or not, but is it possible to write the law in a way that would allow some to be protected and others not?

[j_h_nimrod]

The basis of the act is honorable, reasonable efforts should be made to protect and restore (if possible) all animals. There was nothing honorable or reasonable about reintroducing the wolf.  The ESA May not be a scam but it is being used perpetrate scams.  The greenies are purchasing land as fast as they can to lock up for their own purposes and this is another way for them to lock up lands and not use their own resources.

I like to compare the wolf reintroduction to the reintroduction of the Sea Otter in SE Alaska. Prior to reintroducing a non native sea otter stock there were flourishing urchin, crab, clam, and other shellfish stocks. Now, in many areas of SE AK there are areas where the sea otters have wiped out all mollusk stocks and possibly even exterminated some of the shellfish species. Now large areas are covered with impenetrable kelp mats and thousands of otters that cannot be managed in a reasonable manner.  AK natives can hunt them and I have seen guys coming in with boat loads but it does little to the overall population.  I have heard there are plans in the works for a limited season which would be great, but in many places it is too little too late. Hopefully saner heads prevail down here and one day I don't see packs of wolves roaming the Entiat and not a single deer to be seen.

[bobcat]

The stupid thing is that wolves never were in danger of going extinct, and should not have been listed as being "endangered," in my opinion. There were always plenty of wolves in Alaska and Canada. Bison are just as endangered as wolves ever were, and I don't see them  trying to restore bison to all of the areas where they previously existed. So yes, I do have issues with the way the ESA works, but I just don't think it should be eliminated entirely.

[bearpaw]

  There were roughly 60,000 northern wolves in North America before they were introduced in ID/YNP. Another reason people are opposed to the abuse of the ESA and why congress needs to rewrite or scrap it altogether. 

[Axle]

Good post Wolfbait! 
If anyone wanted to 'save' the wolf, then they should focus on getting rid of the non-native species which was unlawfully introduced and focus on saving what few timer wolves are left. I suspect the Canadian gray has probably killed them all off by now though.
Unlawfully introducing the non-native Canadian gray had nothing to do with saving a species. It does have a destructive way of running us out of ungulates though.

[bobcat]

The ESA does do some good- look at bald eagles, they were brought back from the brink of extinction thanks to the protection they received from the ESA. Also, what about salmon and steelhead, they're important species that deserve saving, I'm sure most everyone would agree with that. And then, as the article mentioned, sage grouse and prairie chickens are benefitting from the ESA. Again, those are species that are important to me and I don't want to see them wiped out entirely.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Good post Wolfbait! 
If anyone wanted to 'save' the wolf, then they should focus on getting rid of the non-native species which was unlawfully introduced and focus on saving what few timer wolves are left. I suspect the Canadian gray has probably killed them all off by now though.
Unlawfully introducing the non-native Canadian gray had nothing to do with saving a species. It does have a destructive way of running us out of ungulates though.

Just curious, are you all for getting rid of all "non-native species" that were introduced? Or is it just wolves? Many non-native species compete with native species for food and habitat.

[timberfaller]

No one have a answer to my question yet?

Remember the Spotted owl was/is used to protect "old growth" by getting it listed.

[bobcat]

No one have a answer to my question yet?

Remember the Spotted owl was/is used to protect "old growth" by getting it listed.

I think you've got it backwards. Old growth was protected to save the spotted owl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Axle]

Good post Wolfbait! 
If anyone wanted to 'save' the wolf, then they should focus on getting rid of the non-native species which was unlawfully introduced and focus on saving what few timer wolves are left. I suspect the Canadian gray has probably killed them all off by now though.
Unlawfully introducing the non-native Canadian gray had nothing to do with saving a species. It does have a destructive way of running us out of ungulates though.




Just curious, are you all for getting rid of all "non-native species" that were introduced? Or is it just wolves? Many non-native species compete with native species for food and habitat.

I'm for getting rid of all the unlawfully-introduced Canadian gray wolves. Having a small number of native wolves here would not bother me.
If there was a way, I would say let's get rid of the rats (which are not native to this country) and I wouldn't mind getting rid of the eastern gray squirrels in western WA too.

[wolfbait]

If the predators were controlled then there would be no need for the the ESA. And WDW&wolves would be WDGF!

Yes, we all know that predation is the only cause of decline in a species.    

I think JLS was being generous in estimating your IQ.

habitat loss.... as difficult as it is for some folks on here to comprehend, wildlife needs a place to live.  The ESA details habitat protection for that purpose.

Do to wolves in WA, MT, ID, WY, OR, and where ever wolves show up, they create more habitat by putting the game herds in a predator pit sooner or later. The argument that more habitat is needed after wolves go through is total BS. Look at where wolves have decimated the game herds in Idaho etc., and soon WA will be in far worse shape. But the pro-wolf agenda driven people still tout more habitat as to the answer for declining game herds etc.. It is a joke, but it probably sounds good to those who are brain-washed.

Here we are 18 years later, we have seen what the wolves have done in other states and yet WDFW are playing the same game as the USFWS did through their wolf push on the three hardest states to introduce wolves in once the truth was known. We shouldn't even be talking about this from the history that we now know, WDFW should be hunting these wolves as a predator instead of protecting them above all else.

[wolfbait]

As far as the ESA, it has never been used to protect a truly endangered species, but instead to acquire  land or shut down areas such as they did with the spotted owl and logging, or shutting down water rights for farmers over a fish that isn't even close to being endangered. The ESA is just another tool used to control the land and the people. It should be scraped.