Critics say Obama lagging on endangered species

[mitchtv]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g9rBe3ACBE-uzxSENaBq8-wycrsg?docId=2631f35a8b64485eb2f38af535c9fab6


WASHINGTON (AP) — Environmental groups are criticizing the Obama administration for what they say is a continuing backlog of plants and animals in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The Fish and Wildlife Service says 251 species are candidates for endangered species protection, four more than a similar review last year found.

Environmental groups say that shows the Obama administration has done little to improve on what they consider a dismal record on endangered species under President George W. Bush.

Nearly two years after taking office, Obama has provided Endangered Species Act protection to 51 plants and animals, an average of 25 a year. By comparison, the Clinton administration protected an average of 65 species per year, and the Bush administration listed about eight species a year>>

>>>more

[David__77]

1. He's lagging on endangered humans.

The most endangered are being put at risk.

[Uzybone]

2. I guess everyone has thier priorities

Man I would hate to be president.

[Parker CA]

3. My thoughts exactly. nt

[demosincebirth]

5. Ditto on that!

[MadMaddie]

4. So nothing new - This is the left critic of the week

Didn't the administration just protect Polar Bears?

[activa8tr]

6. Yup, and some changes at the National Parks service have gone thru ...by

basic policy changes, adminisratively.

But don't worry, Congress will reverse anything that has been done already in the next two years.

The next President can just start over back in what it was like in Reagan's days in office.

[GoCubsGo]

7. 25 vs. 8 is doing "little to improve"?

For chrissakes, he tripled what Bush did. Yeah, it's not the average of 65 species seen in the Clinton administration, but Clinton didn't have to deal with a housing crisis, a banking crisis, two wars, a near-Depression, and a massive oil gusher. Nor, did Clinton's Fish and Wildlife Service have its budget gutted by the GW Bush administration for eight years prior. I really don't think the critics realize just what a fucked-up mess Dumbya left the Interior Department in--on top of the massive budget cuts.

[Agent William]

8. This is what happens when you put Ken Salazar

As Secretary of the Interior. Of course a cattleman will not place anything on the endangered list, it may, or may not affect the bottom line for his friends. I'm sorry, but Ken Salazar is not change I can believe in. In contras they're talking about actually taking many animals off the endangered list...

I'm I right??

[GoCubsGo]

9. Not necessarily.

Some species have recovered, such as, peregrine falcon, brown pelican... When they are no longer endangered, there is no reason for them to remain on the list. Others have been delisted because they have gone extinct. Again, no point in them being on the list.

And, I don't think Ken Salazar is the main problem here. As I pointed out in my previous post, the Interior Department has much bigger issues with which to contend.

[mitchtv]

10. He is a major problem here

he's simply the wrong man for the job. The rancher's best friend

[Agent William]

13. THANK YOU

Exactly, not just small family ranchers either... I mean the big industrial joints. The same mega-ranchers that bitch and moan about government 'hand-outs' to the poor get to have their hundreds-of-thousands of livestock live year round on public property for next to nothing....

Oh what a world we live in.

[Mass]

21. Totally agree.

[impik]

11. Of course he is. He didn't do the dishes today either

[Bluenorthwest]

14. The President claims to be ultra holy pants religious

Devoted to the point that he can not bear to see minorities he does not care for have equal rights over a few verses in a book that commands him to be a steward of the planet. Yet you mock the idea of caring for God's creations. How should I take that, this mocking of the faith to defend the President who uses that faith to oppress others?
Of course, you will not reply. You don't discuss, you fart and leave.

[Honeycombe8]

12. I hate to hear this. I hope the admin. catches up. But...we are in different times

than the Clinton years. We have a few more things going on.

[Mass]

15. Slow news day, I guess, when AP claims they care about endangered species.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Sorry, this is not an editorial, this is reporting. AP is not claiming

to care, they are writing about actions by various environmental groups, it is those environmentalists who 'claim to care about endangered species'. They have devoted their life to such work, so I assume their claim is true.
The AP article ends with a quote from the right that I guess you agree with: "Damien Schiff, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based property rights group that calls the Endangered Species Act a regulatory nightmare, said criticism of Obama by conservation groups is overblown.

"Goes to show that one can never satisfy the environmentalists," he said.

[Mass]

18. No, I dont agree with the quote. I just note that AP rarely reports about these issues, so

it must be a slow news day. And yes, they claim to care enough to report about that. The environmental groups DO CARE. I wished AP cared enough to report on environmental issues every single day, and not just because they have nothing else to report upon. I gave absolutely no opinion about the substance of the article. I thought about doing so, but it would have prevented me from reading your answer. Thanks for this demonstration of mind reading. It actually was totally off-base.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Yes you did give opinion. You smirked that the AP was

"claiming to care" when this was not about the AP's opinion, but about the opinion of environmentalists. Your framing was mendacious. The AP was not making any claims about their position at all. You sneer at the environmentalists, as you try to frame them as tools of the right wing, speaking of this issue only because it is a 'slow news day'. Your opinion on the substance was stated in the form "AP claims they care" which AP did not claim, at all. Not mind reading, just reading what you typed. You stated that this was the AP speaking about the AP, you said they 'claim to care about' the issue. They made no such claim. They are a news service. This is not an editorial. The quotes came from environmentalists, and yet you leave that out.
You say you wish they covered the issue more, yet when they do you snark at them and call straight reporting opinion.
Show me in that article where the AP 'claimed to care' or spoke in any way of their own editorial opinion, and I'll say sorry for mind reading. You said this article was because of a slow news day, and the AP was claiming to care about endangered species. So show me that what you say is true.
The snark from the ardents about this is tacky stuff. Wise cracks and characterizations. Good, honest stuff!

[Mass]

20. I am so happy ignore exists. Bye.-bye.

[ProSense]

17. Well this is encouraging

The federal government spent nearly $1.4 billion last year on programs and land acquisition related to endangered species, up from just under $1 billion the previous year. A total of 793 plants and 578 animals are listed as threatened or endangered in the United States, including 83 mammals and 139 species of fish.

Strickland, who oversees the endangered species program, said it was unfair to evaluate the program based on how many species are listed each year. Some species are in greater danger than others, he said.

<...>

Strickland, who also serves as Salazar's chief of staff, said the Obama administration has taken steps to restore credibility to the endangered species program, which he said had been damaged under the previous administration.

<...>

Second, the department reinstated a rule — dropped by the Bush administration — requiring government agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on actions that could affect endangered species.

It's expected that environmentalists are going to push, but the Obama=Bush implications is simply ridiculous.