Do you think the Endangered Species Act should be strengthened to protect the nation's overall biodiversity?
It has it's good points, but can be carried to far, such as California outlawing lead bullets for hunting because Condors %26quot;might%26quot; eat the lead when scavenging a carcass. Never mind that MOST hunting is done for food animals and there is NO carcass left.
As to climate change. Since the %26quot;experts%26quot; are lucky to get the weather report correct 24 HOURS in advance LOCALLY, what makes you think they know enough to predict GLOBAL weather and/or effects YEARS in advance?
In some cases, you have competing groups trying to protect different animals in the same area, where the requirements for one are detrimental to the other. Which one is more important.
Then cost/benefit ratios. IF the costs exceed the benefits, should the money be spent, jobs lost, at a %26quot;net loss%26quot; to the people, and the economy?
Nothing is free and there are always costs!
Do you think the Endangered Species Act should be strengthened to protect the nation's overall biodiversity?
As it stands now, it can be enforced. Expand it the way you want to and the only ones who would benefit would be the lawyers. And they are already a pest species.
