GOP Closer to Repealing the Endangered Species Act

[Frodo]

And mostly due to one man:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WashPo

[OSR stands with Israel]

What does it's close even mean , as this article doenst even mention how many Senators are in favor of this bill vs how many are against.

[Virginiá]

What does it's close even mean , as this article doenst even mention how many Senators are in favor of this bill vs how many are against.

I was just coming here to post that. I don't see why they would actually be close to doing it. All the article states as 'close' is that Republicans control the White House and Congress, which we all know doesn't give a party carte blanche. The reality here is that they probably can't pass the bills as they currently exist, at least not without gutting the filibuster. At worst, maybe a watered down version of one of the bills passes, although there aren't really a whole lot of reasons for 8 Democratic Senators to lend their support, especially for something like this. And that assumes the entire Republican Senate caucus is on board.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Glorious news!

[MasterJedi]

Disgusting, given the chance humans would hunt anything into extinction if there were no regulations. Without a deer season in the US there likely wouldn't have been dear for decades now as an example of a common species that reproduces fast.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Glorious news!

Oh glorious!  those animals am I right? OIL OIL OIL!!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Glorious news!

Oh glorious!  those animals am I right? OIL OIL OIL!!

In the case of the wolf, its Beef Beef Beef!

[Pericles]

You never cease to disappoint, GOP. KILL THE BILL!

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

My opinions on each of these provisions vary widely, so I'm going to respond individually to each provision:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually a decent idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Going to have to oppose this, based on the very notable disparity between federal funding vs. state funding. Let's use the data that is actually gathered in higher quantities, which in this case is the federal data.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

&

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm always skeptical of limiting the people's ability to challenge stuff in court, though this is too complex of a provision for me to make up my mind on based solely on a very short summary. Would definitely be interested in knowing more about what exactly is being stripped away here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rabidly opposed. The Gray Wolf population in the contiguous states is only about ~5,000 (combining both those in Yellowstone and those in the great lakes region), and they would be at least fairly likely to become extinct without crucial federal protection. Simply put, they're an amazing species that I've been passionate about for a long time. For a span of nearly 4 years, I even participated on a forum (and related sites) related to them. So yeah. Shut up about this provision now.

Also going to empty quote a good post upthread:

What does it's close even mean , as this article doenst even mention how many Senators are in favor of this bill vs how many are against.

[AtorBoltox]

Are republicans determined to be real life Captain Planet villains?

[Sirius_]

Glorious Terrifying news!

[publicunofficial]

My opinions on each of these provisions vary widely, so I'm going to respond individually to each provision:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually a decent idea.

How small would the economic impact have to be in order to convince the average Republican legislature to save a species? Like, an annual loss of 10 cents?

[Virginiá]

How small would the economic impact have to be in order to convince the average Republican legislature to save a species? Like, an annual loss of 10 cents?

lmbo

[Mr. Reactionary]

My opinions on each of these provisions vary widely, so I'm going to respond individually to each provision:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually a decent idea.

How small would the economic impact have to be in order to convince the average Republican legislature to save a species? Like, an annual loss of 10 cents?

It would probably vary from species to species. Mammals would  probably be safe even at higher costs. The Delhi sand fly or Texas sand dune lizard probably wouldn't.

[Pericles]

Environmental protection shouldn't be for-profit.

[Badger]

Environmental protection shouldn't be for-profit.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Environmental protection shouldn't be for-profit.

While I disagree with basing the decision on whether a species should be protected on an economic projection, it being "for-profit" isn't really the issue here.    They should measure the economic impact, and then try to provide some sort of ameliorative policy if it causes economic hardship.