Defenders Opposes Amendments That Undercut Endangered Species Act in Interior Appropriations

[UngulateNerd92]

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations today took up the Interior and Environment funding bill for the FY24. As proposed, the bill drastically decreases the necessary funding for important wildlife conservation programs across the country. Anti-wildlife politicians also added additional poison pill riders onto the bill that would undercut the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and public lands management. The underlying bill already includes a number of anti-wildlife riders.

“Combatting the joint threat of biodiversity and climate crises and the costly impacts they are already having on our society will not be overcome by designating pennies on desperately needed dollars,” said Mary Beth Beetham, legislative director for Defenders of Wildlife. “Our nation’s wildlife needs our help more now than ever, yet some in Congress seem determined to accelerate species extinction through paltry funding, cruel riders and now attempts to rewrite bedrock protections including the landmark Endangered Species Act.”

Defenders Opposes Amendments That Undercut Endangered Species Act in Interior Appropriations

 

[Pantheraman]

It's for reasons like this that I no longer consider the United States top tier in wildlife conservation. If anything that title goes to Europe.

And you know, it's funny (not). When people voted for Biden, the people thought the damage done by the previous administration would be reversed. Yet this and other disasters such as the wolf-killing sprees in the Rocky Mountain states and the catering to the oil industry have occurred under the watch of a democrat administration.

If anything, all of this should be a wake-up call to those who enjoy wildlife: Neither party actually cares about our wildlife. The only thing they're interested in is their own power and expanding it wherever possible.

 

[Pantheraman]

@UngulateNerd92 Another thing I want to point out, what these politicians want to do is keep catering to the special interests that threaten wildlife populations, but of course, the Endangered Species Act gets in the way. So they want to make it virtually impossible to conserve endangered species and when our endangered species are out of the way, it means one less obstacle for the special interests they're catering to.

 

[UngulateNerd92]

@UngulateNerd92 Another thing I want to point out, what these politicians want to do is keep catering to the special interests that threaten wildlife populations, but of course, the Endangered Species Act gets in the way. So they want to make it virtually impossible to conserve endangered species and when our endangered species are out of the way, it means one less obstacle for the special interests they're catering to.

I could not agree more! This sums up the situation perfectly!

 

[Pantheraman]

@UngulateNerd92

And here's proof politicians don't actually care about what the people want.

Vast majority of Americans support Endangered Species Act despite increasing efforts to curtail it: Political and business interests don't appear to align with public's view

"Roughly four out of five Americans support the act, and only one in 10 oppose it, found a survey of 1,287 Americans. Support has remained stable for the past two decades, the researchers report in the journal Conservation Letters.

"Every time the ESA is in the news, you hear about how controversial it is. But the three most recent studies show that, on average, approximately 83 percent of the public supports it, and that's sort of the opposite of controversial," Bruskotter said.

 

[JVM]

It's for reasons like this that I no longer consider the United States top tier in wildlife conservation. If anything that title goes to Europe.

And you know, it's funny (not). When people voted for Biden, the people thought the damage done by the previous administration would be reversed. Yet this and other disasters such as the wolf-killing sprees in the Rocky Mountain states and the catering to the oil industry have occurred under the watch of a democrat administration.

If anything, all of this should be a wake-up call to those who enjoy wildlife: Neither party actually cares about our wildlife. The only thing they're interested in is their own power and expanding it wherever possible.

It's extremely foolish and sort-sighted to expect that any political administration to completely undo the damage of its predecessor. Any animals poached or wilderness encroached on during the Trump administration will not return to normal with any amount of new legislation intended to address the issue. Passing laws do not take affect overnight even with bipartisan consensus and cannot be enforced retroactively. Exiting a war doesn't undo deaths that happened before. It actually takes nine months in a new president's term for their actions to have an effect on the economy.

There is also no good reason to draw an equivalency between an administration that actively removed regulation and protections and an administration that has worked actively to undo some of those changes, as shown here, here and further discussed here, with consequences shown in the judicial branch here, with this article illustrating that these actions have earned rebuke by Republicans, suggesting there is, in fact, one party may care about wildlife slightly more than the other, even if that difference of care is not enough to magically undo four years of considerable damage by one of the most regressive anti-environmentalist administrations in the modern political era in this country. It would be naive to expect sunshine and rainbows after as I think any of us could agree.

In addition, the article is discussing two bills in the House of Representatives, one bill which was proposed by a Republican and is being taken up by a Republican majority lead by Republican majority leader Kevin McCarthy, and the other which came from the Republican majority of the appropriations committee in the same Republican-lead chamber. The bill has not yet even reached the desk of the President of the United States, who will still have the opportunity to veto it, as would the democratic-lead Senate, which is no guarantee with a slim majority. That would be the perfect day to complain about a "democrat" administration, but this article is about a Republican-lead chamber is trying to pass Republican-written bills, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Biden administration. The fact you took these facts and turned it into "this is about a democrat administration" is incredibly disingenuous.