Endangered Species Act-Should it be changed? Poll.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

The Endangered Species Act became law thirty years ago. It has been credited with saving many species from extinction. It also has been criticized for restricting economic development. In Maine, the Atlantic salmon has been listed as an endangered species - which has an effect on aquaculture in the state. Should the law be changed?

http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/031228endanger.shtml?survey52340

Yes, it needs to respect the economic impacts of protection: 50.85%

Yes, it needs stronger protection of wildlife: 32.20%

No, it works well: 16.95%

Total Votes: 118

[BackDoorMan]

1. Of course. "Yes, it needs stronger protection of wildlife:"

Who in the fuck are we to chop down, kill everything insight, pollute, exploit and change the course of nature????

We are simply caretakers for future generations. What fucking right do we have to clear cut ancient forest? But try and tell these fucking greedy republicans this…it’s just more, more and more…”the I want it all and now attitude"…fucking pigs, never enough.fuck

Alaska, the outsize chunks of federal spending that Senator Ted Stevens has secured for his constituents in his long career are fondly termed "Stevens money." As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the resourceful Republican has made Alaska a supermagnet for government projects, fighting to see local interests benefit by as much as if not more than 70 percent in federal dollars than the per capita average nationally. Lately, however, there is a new connotation to Stevens money. An extensive report in The Los Angeles Times on business dealings by the senator shows he has been personally enriched by investing in Alaskan companies that benefited handsomely from his official actions.

In just a few years, Mr. Stevens built a $50,000 investment tailored for him by a developer into a personal fortune of perhaps a million dollars or more in real estate. In a separate dealing, the senator, whose clout at the Pentagon is legendary, helped this private-sector patron secure a $450 million Air Force housing contract over Pentagon objections. "I am a passive investor," Senator Stevens declared, defending as entirely proper the dealings that have also benefited his wife and his brother-in-law, an Alaskan lobbyist. The senator argues that he loves Alaska and is entitled to show his faith in the state. Constituents may wish that they, too, had the opportunity for such profitable acts of faith.

It is hard to argue that Mr. Stevens is breaking any Senate rules, for, stunningly, there is no explicit ban on a senator's engaging in profitable dealings with businesses and individuals who benefit from the lawmaker's official actions. There is only an amorphous criterion against behavior that brings "shame" upon the Senate. So far, the Ethics Committee has offered no hint as to whether the senator's home-state dealings merit official shame and sanction. We would hope to see Senate clubbiness at least ruffled by Mr. Stevens's blithe dealings. The possibility of reforming ethical standards has been raised, even by Senator Stevens himself, as he expressed confidence there is no rule he could be violating.

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. i have mixed feelings

because in pensacola there is this plant thats co called "endangered" thats choking the city

[Columbia]

3. Maybe

A more dynamic kind of list is necessary. One that more frequently looks at what species should be put on and taken off according to the ecosystem.