Republicans are now planning to kill the endangered species act

[DavidB.]

Uh, I don't like this. Leave animals alone!

[publicunofficial]

Uh, I don't like this. Leave animals alone!

DavidB: "Save the wolves, kill the Muslims"

[ag]

Uh, I don't like this. Leave animals alone!

DavidB: "Save the wolves, kill the Muslims"

There was another guy with similar tastes. I do not remember his name, though. May be, somebody here will help?

[Middle-aged Europe]

I hope Republicans will soon be the endangered species.

[krazen1211]

Trump continues to be an amazing top 5 President!

[Middle-aged Europe]

Trump continues to be an amazing top 5 President!

Great president or Greatest president?

[JA]

"If God had intended these animals to live any longer, then obviously they wouldn't be on the endangered species list."

"We can't sacrifice jobs and profit for the sake of some inferior creatures."

- Congressional Republicans

[RINO Tom]

I hope Republicans will soon be the endangered species.

*Dislikes legislative action*

*Jokes about killing off the voters who agree with it*

[publicunofficial]

I hope Republicans will soon be the endangered species.

*Dislikes legislative action*

*Jokes about killing off the voters who agree with it*

Or he meant electorally. Chill out.

[RINO Tom]

I hope Republicans will soon be the endangered species.

*Dislikes legislative action*

*Jokes about killing off the voters who agree with it*

Or he meant electorally. Chill out.

LOL, I know he probably wasn't serious.

[DavidB.]

Uh, I don't like this. Leave animals alone!

DavidB: "Save the wolves, kill the Muslims"

There was another guy with similar tastes. I do not remember his name, though. May be, somebody here will help?

[MasterJedi]

I blame sweet home v babbitt. The ESA says its unlawful to take a protected species. Take is defined in the ESA as hunting/killing/trapping. The Court decided that despite the context "take" also meant cutting down trees or developing land where protected species could hypothetically live even if the development does not harm a single protected animal. That is a significant reinterpretation and has been used as a tactic by greens to shut down development. With citizen enforcement suits, mandatory response times by the feds, NEPA, and the EATJA the ESA is being abused. Whether its the Texas dune sand lizard, the gopher frog or the delhi sands fly, the ESA is becoming nothing more than a limitation on development as opposed to a protector of animals actually at risk of going extinct.

Yes, because the endangered animal only lives in this forest but we should be able to knock down all the trees and kill its habitat and then be surprised that it died out.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I blame sweet home v babbitt. The ESA says its unlawful to take a protected species. Take is defined in the ESA as hunting/killing/trapping. The Court decided that despite the context "take" also meant cutting down trees or developing land where protected species could hypothetically live even if the development does not harm a single protected animal. That is a significant reinterpretation and has been used as a tactic by greens to shut down development. With citizen enforcement suits, mandatory response times by the feds, NEPA, and the EATJA the ESA is being abused. Whether its the Texas dune sand lizard, the gopher frog or the delhi sands fly, the ESA is becoming nothing more than a limitation on development as opposed to a protector of animals actually at risk of going extinct.

Yes, because the endangered animal only lives in this forest but we should be able to knock down all the trees and kill its habitat and then be surprised that it died out.

Congress wrote the statue making it illegal to trap/hunt/kill endangered species. Letting the courts rewrite statutes because the government should be able to do something is bad precedent.

[MasterJedi]

I blame sweet home v babbitt. The ESA says its unlawful to take a protected species. Take is defined in the ESA as hunting/killing/trapping. The Court decided that despite the context "take" also meant cutting down trees or developing land where protected species could hypothetically live even if the development does not harm a single protected animal. That is a significant reinterpretation and has been used as a tactic by greens to shut down development. With citizen enforcement suits, mandatory response times by the feds, NEPA, and the EATJA the ESA is being abused. Whether its the Texas dune sand lizard, the gopher frog or the delhi sands fly, the ESA is becoming nothing more than a limitation on development as opposed to a protector of animals actually at risk of going extinct.

Yes, because the endangered animal only lives in this forest but we should be able to knock down all the trees and kill its habitat and then be surprised that it died out.

Congress wrote the statue making it illegal to trap/hunt/kill endangered species. Letting the courts rewrite statutes because the government should be able to do something is bad precedent.

If you knock down all the trees in this forest you will KILL the endangered animal which only lives here. Seems very clear to me.

[OneJ]

The Republican party is officially going insane.

We protect endangered species for a reason. They're part of what makes the ecosystem maintain itself.

[Heisenberg]

I hope this has enough Republican votes to get stopped in the House, or at least the Senate. I don't get all this anti-environmentalism. This is one thing where I am moderate on. Yes, regulations are generally bad, but conservation and National Parks are an important part of America. I happen to oppose fracking, but ONLY in highly populated areas. Fracking in low-population areas is good for energy production, and can also help us study long-term effects of fracking, which the EPA says is safe. I am also okay with local communities making their own decisions with fracking. I am strongly opposed to this crap, but I know that there's no way this gets through the Senate. Susan Collins will not support it, and Cory Gardner and Jeff Flake will have tough times explaining to their constituents if they support it. Also, extreme crap like this rather than focusing on stuff like tax reform, healthcare improvements, law enforcement, etc. is exactly what would lead to a Democratic wave. Just sayin'.