This is just another of Pete Olson's bills designed to eradicate the protections of the ESA. While he's framing his act as allowing the government to prioritize the most endangered species, his actual goal is to eliminate protections for species which impede oil drilling projects that he would like to see pursued. He has not been subtle about this intention (https://olson.house.gov/olson-energy-wildcatters-speech). This is a trend in legislation he has proposed (Here's the same bill in 2015: https://olson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/olson-introduces-bill-to-give-flexibility-on-esa-listings). The full text of the bill isn't yet available, but here's a small press release for review: http://www.ogj.com/articles/2017/01/olson-reintroduces-bill-to-reform-endangered-species-act-process.html
Sounds like a Trumpian add-on to dismantle the EPA further and kill our planet. Costs always seem to appear in media coverage when we are attempting to calculate the value of worthy mice, owls, etc. versus development on public land.
The only reason for this bill is to allow businesses to exploit natural resources without regard for potential extinction of animal species. We must be responsible stewards of animals who are subject to the consequences of human activity. The end of a species should not be compromised by profit.
Wildlife protection should be a bipartisan issue. Species do not become threatened or endangered conforming to fit within a set number of spaces. We must do all in our power to prevent extinction of animal species. Especially when these animals are endangered because of human activities. We have done enough damage to our ecosystem, we MUST begin to rectify the problems we have caused. Business interests should not take precedent over the welfare of wildlife.
Many species face extinction without intervention. A cost benefit analysis is inappropriate to decide the survival of a species given the impact of the loss may be unknown. Protection of the environment should always supersedes business interests.
Please vote NO on HR 717. There is not a finite number of species for the endangered list. That's not how that works. At the rate we're going, pretty much every wild animal is going to be able to be on this list. If we are in a position of losing an entire species, we should be doing everything in our power to protect it. We certainly shouldn't be saying it doesn't get our protection bc it didn't become endangered fast enough. Losing 1 species impacts an ecosystem. At some point our planet will stop sustaining us bc we've eliminated it's ability to. Please vote NO on HR 717. I want there to be a place go RF my grandkids someday.
As a Conservation Scientist, and a person, the decision to list a species as endangered is a complicated process but not one that should be dictated by ideology. We need biodiversity please let scientists do their jobs!
Science and facts determine whether or not a species is endangered of becoming extinct, not partisan ideology. It is not, nor should it be, up to a politician to decide which animals get protection and which don't based on their own business interests (H.R.717 would effectively free up lands for drilling). Vote NO on this bill that would give the fossil fuel industry even more influence than the grip they already increasingly have over politicians.
Wildlife protection is a bipartisan issue. Almost all voting Americans, somewhere over 80% when polled, support the Endangered Species Act. Do not sell out American icons like the bald eagle for oil interests. Millions of people come to America, helping the tourism industry, for these animals. Some of these animals are only found in certain parts of North America, and erasure of there existence in a local ecosystem could cause trickle down havoc to other populations in that same system -- including human -- such as the increase of pest. Why would you limit the number of species that can be protected, when they not only help some of our industries, but also are an extreme benefactor to local ecosystems? I value our nation's wildlife and would hope you would do so as well by voting NO on H.R. 717.