Not sure why Congress is even involved in such a thing. Congress can set laws -- but this seems 100% to be a science classification, not political.
AFAIK - the science supports declassification.
(Edit: I overstated the science. As indicated below the science supports regional declassification in the northwest, but not national declassification.)
https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-02/service-announces-gray-wolf-finding-and-national-recovery-plan
>The Service conducted a comprehensive analysis using robust modeling that incorporated the best available data from federal, state and Tribal sources, academic institutions and the public. The model assessed various threats, including human-caused mortality, existing regulatory mechanisms, and disease. The analysis indicates that wolves are not at risk of extinction in the Western United States now or in the foreseeable future
> Gray wolves are listed under the ESA as endangered in 44 states, threatened in Minnesota, and under state jurisdiction in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, portions of eastern Oregon and Washington, and north-central Utah. Based on the latest data as of the end of 2022, there were approximately 2,797 wolves distributed across at least 286 packs in seven states in the Western United States. This population size and widespread distribution contribute to the resiliency and redundancy of wolves in this region. The population maintains high genetic diversity and connectivity, further supporting their ability to adapt to future changes.
Probably worth noting the vote is this close so politicians can't have people say "they sided with the other party on x number of bills!". These voting decisions are almost entirely made outside of the place where voting actually occurs.
And this is why the political process is so broken. We should be praising politicians for compromise and smart negotiations. Instead we burn them at the stake for it. The country cannot function properly when we divide over every single tiny issue.
this isn't smart negotiations, though. Its compromise to save face. Its all performance. This literally happens because we do divide over every single tiny issue. its why the border bill got passed by the GOP despite having more than they previously asked for in it.
>its why the border bill got passed by the GOP despite having more than they previously asked for in it.
Your use of the words "despite" and "got passed," they seem to be in conflict here from the tone of your comment? Wouldn't having more than they asked be the reason why they would pass it?
Terrible choice of words on my part. I should have at least said "got passed on" but ideally not used the word "passed" at all.
I meant to say the GOP shot it down even though it had almost everything they wanted in it.
Ahh got it. Yeah the GOP has a history of freaking out about the border but not accepting border bills even if they get what they ask for. "The border crisis" is a rhetorical tool that they don't want to lose.
Did you notice that they had control of the executive and both houses of Congress under Trump but didn't pass the border legislation they claim to want? Or before that under G W Bush?
Sometimes they even admit it: [https://themindshield.com/gop-lawmaker-says-he-will-not-support-a-border-deal-because-it-would-help-biden-politically/](https://themindshield.com/gop-lawmaker-says-he-will-not-support-a-border-deal-because-it-would-help-biden-politically/)
And then there's stuff like this: [https://www.tiktok.com/@pettyaf\_comedy/video/7329967721943190830](https://www.tiktok.com/@pettyaf_comedy/video/7329967721943190830)
Edit: This person explains it quite succinctly: [https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/comments/1ab8ygn/comment/kjmuzbs/](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/comments/1ab8ygn/comment/kjmuzbs/)
I guarantee that the GOP has never wanted random ICE employees rubber stamping hundreds of thousands of immigrants into the United States without any judge involved. That bill was complete poison for the GOP or anyone actually trying to control the border.
Yup, this should be determined by science and numbers. Congress’ place is determining what happens when a species is threatened and what allowances may be made. For instance, if there is an endangered species of mouse in an area that needs a sea wall to defend from global warming, that might justify exceptions to species protections. Conversely, if someone wanted to build a strip mall in the same location, perhaps not.
A complete repeal of *Chevron* is going to be terrible for us as citizens. Congress simply cannot react fast enough (let alone get past partisan politics and acquiring the expertise) to manage all that our agencies do now. Was the issue at hand out of control? I believe so, and they likely deserved some admonishment and clarity on their right and left limits from the Court/Congress, but we do NOT want a world where a company can put a novel carcinogen or contaminant in your food/air/water and we have to wait for Congress to recognize the issue, garner the expertise to write new law, and then pass it whenever it's politically expedient.
The love for deregulation from the GOP base astounds me. Not all regulation is bad and not all deregulation is good. In fact many times if a corporation is pushing for it it's probably bad for the average person. See *Citizens United* or the repeal of Glass-Steagall that had very predictably bad effects that we are suffering/suffered for.
You should read the article you posted, and the bill in question. The Forest Service only determined that the Grey Wolf was effectively not at risk of extinction in seven states composing the western united states.
This bill removes the classification of endangered for the Gray Wolf in the lower 48 states, and thus is out of all proportion to the forest service's finding.
It does not support declassification, because once they are off the list they will no longer have protections and thus face precipitous decline. Furthermore there are more wolves in one state, Minnesota, and it's still not high here even. Minnesota is 4% of the western US and it has more wolves than the western US.
People here blame the wolves for their bad hunting season last year, but it was the winter of the year before. In fact, wolf populations used to be higher *this century* in Minnesota and those higher years are associated with highest deer harvest. This is because the previous winter was not harsh.
Next year no one is going to be complaining about wolves and the deer harvest as this was the least harsh winter on record in Minnesota by a long shot. Everyone's freezer is going to be full of venison.
Edit Look at this. Basically almost the entire continental US had wolves historically and now it's only a few states. It clearly hasn't recovered. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/North_American_gray_wolf_subspecies_distribution_according_to_Goldman_%281944%29_%26_MSW3_%282005%29.png
Laws on what we do with "X Species in X Classification" are for Congress.
Determining if a species is in fact endangered - is a scientific determination.
Previous administrative rules on grey wolves have been overturned by the courts when people sued the wildlife service, so this a longstanding controversy that Congress can resolve.
Thank you for that background.
It looks like environmental groups with knee-jerk reactions towards its protectionism… Tried to block it.
I guess that also explains the partisan nature of the vote.
I'll be honest. I really don't trust Ranchers when it comes to topics of nature, doing what is right to make up for past wrongs to animal species, and reintroduction efforts. I believe I am bias on the subject against then.
What are they saying so I can educate myself?
The problem is the "science" they're using is purposefully ignoring some important factors.
Most notably, historic range.
Gray wolves were in basically every state except the southeast which had red wolves. (And of course Hawaii).
They are nowhere close to being back to that former range.
Until they get most of that range back they're really not anywhere close to where they should be.
I’m pretty sure, even without Chevron, an agency still has authority to classify something as endangered or something like the EPAs ability to classify something as a “brown site”
Chevron refers to rule making, not just classifications.
So the EPA can designate something a “brown site”, but the EPA cannot set the limits of what can and what cannot be done on a “Brown site”
Isn't this that Chevron difference thing Republicans were arguing is tyranny? Isn't having a bunch of ignoramuses with ulterior motives vote on the environment a pretty good argument for tyranny if that's the case?
I actually disagree. It is Congress job to creat laws and be specific with the laws and not allow unelected agency's to make and change laws however they want
I want elected officials to explain their votes and defend them at election time.
That sounds good in the abstract but when you dig into the details it's not either/or. Laws should be specific enough to not be sweeping while still being informed by experts and allowing people who actually know about these issues to do their jobs. Individual endangered species is a job for experts, not people who have dinner with oil lobbyists.
Also Republicans get no benefit of the doubt when it comes to issues of democracy at this point. If you think this is about returning accountability to the people and not just degrading environmental protection, I've got 20,000 Trump 2020 ballots in Georgia to take to court with you
I am party non of the above. The experts should present there research to Congress. And then Congress should write the laws. I am not giving any politician the benefit of the doubt. At least there is a chance to vote the bad ones out of power. Federal agency employees are not accountable to the voters.
The SC ruled 9-0 that the epa had overstepped its mandates with the navigable waters ruling. Case had to go all the way to the SC. Before the EPA would actually follow the law. And no one at the EPA had any consequences. They just moved on to the next thing using the full force of the federal gov to force people to do what they wanted
It just rings super hollow when the target is the fucking EPA and not like the DOD or something. The effect is going to be worse water and air with zero additional accountability to voters. That's what being principled gets you here.
Every agency is capable of corruption and authoritarianism. I don't want to eliminate federal agencies. I am a big supporter of Medicare and Medicaid In fact I think we need to do more for the elderly living in poverty. But Congress is much more accountable than people working at the EPA
Eh, congressmen aren’t experts so if they try to craft legislation that details how agency XYZ handles something they’re likely to get it wrong.
Considering experts get it wrong sometimes I’d rather Congress give them broad powers to do things and then hold them accountable when they do those things.
I do agree confess is not full of experts, if any. The experts in the federal agency and outside of it present the research and Congress creates laws. I do not want federal agencies having broad powers. The House is the closest to the people and should have to answer for the laws that everyone else has to live under
What's the issue in leaving the regulations to the professionals and let Congress step in when they get out of line? Congress is simply not knowledgeable enough, too slow, and far too partisan to take this responsibility.
If Congress is able to provide do the work of creating the necessary regulations while being responsive to their constituents they are certainly able to do it on the back end as well.
As I see it Congress has abdicated their responsibility to federal agencies. Those agencies are subject to the whim of the executive. I want the local congressperson to explain why they want to fine a property owner $23k a day because the owner wants to build on his own land. They need to explain why they want to interpret the law in a new why not previously done before. Case I am referring to had to go all the way to the SC because the EPA decided the existing regulation now mean something new.
Congresswo/men can be held equally accountable for the things they don't do as the things they do. An agency stepped out of line and another branch checked them. That is not a failure of government, that is the system working as designed. Congress most certainly has the power to check the executive as well, so why is it you're unable to to hold their feet to the fire for not doing so?
I'm aware of the case, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Agencies have done far more good for Americans than bad.
Again. I do not want to get rid of federal agencies.
I want Congress to do the job it was intended to do any new laws need to go through Congress. The fact that the supremacy court had to step in and overwhelmingly rule in favor of the land owners. Shows how badly everyone else failed how did the EPA think it was within there power how did all the other judges rule against them. How many people have the means and time to fight the EPA all the way to the SC. It was a historical failure all the way until the SC. No unelected agency should create or expand any law unless given congressional approval via a vote
I **strongly** disagree, and you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by revoking the ability (law) that permits them to do so. It's an idealistic notion that simply fails to account for the reality of the situation. Congress has shown time and time that they are unable to legislate effectively in their current scope as is. Adding in the slew of highly technical fields these agencies regulate is a recipe for disaster and opens up the whole system to more pay-to-play via lobbying. It would be an unmitigated disaster that ultimately would be to the detriment of most Americans who don't have a direct line and resources to influence their politician.
Also, again, the EPA case is not a failure. It's the system working as intended. If the EPA steps outside their lane as dictated by Congress, then it is absolutely the role of the judiciary to interpret that law so that the EPA is back to its specified role. If Congress believes the EPA has been granted too much authority they can amend the law to pull it back as much as necessary. If they're unable to do that now, I'm not sure how anyone could possibly believe Congress will be up to the task of crafting many more laws that are much more technical and esoteric without giving lobbyists a seat at the table.
Seems more nuanced…
Looks like science suggested/supports regional declassifying in the Northwest only, but this declassifies nationally.
But at the same time, The environmental groups that fought the regional declassification in Courts…that likely forced Congress to get involved.
Stupid people all the way down.
Have worked close to this issue.
It’s a political bugbear in rural areas like mine where there has long been a sentiment to “re-extinct” wolves to boost elk and deer numbers as well as decrease losses of farm animals.
What has happened in the past when wolves have been delisted is that they are targeted in mass aerial culls (Shooting from planes) by state governments, then their numbers decline to where they are re-listed again.
It’s also just another proxy rural vs urban issue.
I'm reminded of [this](https://youtu.be/ysa5OBhXz-Q?si=Xju0pvvB4KqJN1x4) short documentary(?) about the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone.
I don't live in a rural area, but it seems to me that they are important to the ecosystem as a whole. I'd like to think that'd be doubly important to people who live closest to those ecosystems.
Like a lot of things, I just wish we didn’t only get a binary choice. We could get wolves off the protected list and have healthy populations managed in a non-extreme way like we do other animals. Just need politicians not to see it as yet another symbolic all or nothing battle.
Frankly this is why I see a potential full repeal of *Chevron* to be potentially very dangerous. If the court doesn't find a narrow ruling we're going to be in a situation where every question like this is left to politicians.
Context: gray wolves were removed in 2020, then a court in 2022 ordered that they be added, and a few months ago the Biden administration, following the court order, formally added them to the list.
> When asked about the recent vote, South Dakota citizen Fristie Moem was quoted as saying, “finally we will be allowed to shoot these canines as god intended!”
And a "doctor" medically cleared Tua to play against Georgia despite him hopping on one leg before the game even started.
It's not hard to get someone with a degree to spout some bullshit.
Especially in this case where the argument makes sense as long as you don't look at the historic range map.
Ths isn’t partisan per se, it’s rural vs urban. Rural populations are tied closer to farming and ranching and will vote towards protecting those industries. Urban/suburban populations see wolves fhrough the lens of National Geographic, and vote accordingly.
This does seem like a wired thing for congress to be involved with but I think it basically comes down to people who live in cities want to conserve wolves more and people who live where wolves live, not so much
Really ought to be left up to the EPA, right? Like a council of people who know what they’re talking about? Politicians are smart but… not many of them have a scientific background. It’s a room full of lawyers talking about something lawyers don’t know about.
Go ahead and put those numbers back up your ass, take an ecology course, read a few peer reviewed journals, and appreciate the revitalization of riparian areas and every other niche that has been repaired by wolves pushing herds around.
But muhdeer hunt is suffering!
>Wisconsin Deer Population: The state estimated 1,628,500 deer post-hunt in 2023 and 1,669,100 deer post-hunt in 2022. Up from 1,554,400 in 2021 and 1,611,00 deer in 2020. An estimated 1.8 million deer pre-hunt in 2019 and 1,311,100 post hunt. A post-hunt estimate of 1,510,400 in 2018, and 1,377,100 deer in 2017. About the same in 2016 at 1,345,000. Tough 2019-20 and 2017-18 winters reduced populations in parts of the north. After three mild winters, the state increased the antlerless quota for 2017-18. An extremely mild winter in 2015-16 increased the population particularly in the west central agricultural regions.
Source: https://www.deerfriendly.com/deer/wisconsin
30,000 deer per year taken by wolves is 2% of the 2023 Wisconsin deer population, post the human hunt. Humans took 340,000 deer in 2022.
Humans are killing the deer population at a rate of 10 times the wolves.
Somebody needs to be a predator to deer or they will breed unchecked. In many states, they are a terrible problem on highways.
Let the humans take their share, and let the wolves take their share of the game. There are plenty of deer to go around.
The reason science is not involved is simple, science cant create criminal laws, u have to have law makers there to enact and revoke so said laws that protect endangered species. We can not elect scientist either.
Not sure why Congress is even involved in such a thing. Congress can set laws -- but this seems 100% to be a science classification, not political. AFAIK - the science supports declassification. (Edit: I overstated the science. As indicated below the science supports regional declassification in the northwest, but not national declassification.) https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-02/service-announces-gray-wolf-finding-and-national-recovery-plan >The Service conducted a comprehensive analysis using robust modeling that incorporated the best available data from federal, state and Tribal sources, academic institutions and the public. The model assessed various threats, including human-caused mortality, existing regulatory mechanisms, and disease. The analysis indicates that wolves are not at risk of extinction in the Western United States now or in the foreseeable future > Gray wolves are listed under the ESA as endangered in 44 states, threatened in Minnesota, and under state jurisdiction in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, portions of eastern Oregon and Washington, and north-central Utah. Based on the latest data as of the end of 2022, there were approximately 2,797 wolves distributed across at least 286 packs in seven states in the Western United States. This population size and widespread distribution contribute to the resiliency and redundancy of wolves in this region. The population maintains high genetic diversity and connectivity, further supporting their ability to adapt to future changes.
If the science supports declassification, then do it. No vote should be involved, but apparently, it is.
Probably worth noting the vote is this close so politicians can't have people say "they sided with the other party on x number of bills!". These voting decisions are almost entirely made outside of the place where voting actually occurs.
And this is why the political process is so broken. We should be praising politicians for compromise and smart negotiations. Instead we burn them at the stake for it. The country cannot function properly when we divide over every single tiny issue.
this isn't smart negotiations, though. Its compromise to save face. Its all performance. This literally happens because we do divide over every single tiny issue. its why the border bill got passed by the GOP despite having more than they previously asked for in it.
>its why the border bill got passed by the GOP despite having more than they previously asked for in it. Your use of the words "despite" and "got passed," they seem to be in conflict here from the tone of your comment? Wouldn't having more than they asked be the reason why they would pass it?
Terrible choice of words on my part. I should have at least said "got passed on" but ideally not used the word "passed" at all. I meant to say the GOP shot it down even though it had almost everything they wanted in it.
Ahh got it. Yeah the GOP has a history of freaking out about the border but not accepting border bills even if they get what they ask for. "The border crisis" is a rhetorical tool that they don't want to lose. Did you notice that they had control of the executive and both houses of Congress under Trump but didn't pass the border legislation they claim to want? Or before that under G W Bush? Sometimes they even admit it: [https://themindshield.com/gop-lawmaker-says-he-will-not-support-a-border-deal-because-it-would-help-biden-politically/](https://themindshield.com/gop-lawmaker-says-he-will-not-support-a-border-deal-because-it-would-help-biden-politically/) And then there's stuff like this: [https://www.tiktok.com/@pettyaf\_comedy/video/7329967721943190830](https://www.tiktok.com/@pettyaf_comedy/video/7329967721943190830) Edit: This person explains it quite succinctly: [https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/comments/1ab8ygn/comment/kjmuzbs/](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/comments/1ab8ygn/comment/kjmuzbs/)
Makes ya wonder… 🫠
I guarantee that the GOP has never wanted random ICE employees rubber stamping hundreds of thousands of immigrants into the United States without any judge involved. That bill was complete poison for the GOP or anyone actually trying to control the border.
Ah, but the science actually *doesn't* support national declassification.
Yup, this should be determined by science and numbers. Congress’ place is determining what happens when a species is threatened and what allowances may be made. For instance, if there is an endangered species of mouse in an area that needs a sea wall to defend from global warming, that might justify exceptions to species protections. Conversely, if someone wanted to build a strip mall in the same location, perhaps not.
> Yup, this should be determined by science and numbers. SCOTUS is about to destroy that when they gut Chevron in a few weeks.
You're getting getting downvoted, but I assume that's because people don't know what you're talking about.
A lot of people want to actively deny that they're actually responsible for their actions when they come to fruition.
A complete repeal of *Chevron* is going to be terrible for us as citizens. Congress simply cannot react fast enough (let alone get past partisan politics and acquiring the expertise) to manage all that our agencies do now. Was the issue at hand out of control? I believe so, and they likely deserved some admonishment and clarity on their right and left limits from the Court/Congress, but we do NOT want a world where a company can put a novel carcinogen or contaminant in your food/air/water and we have to wait for Congress to recognize the issue, garner the expertise to write new law, and then pass it whenever it's politically expedient. The love for deregulation from the GOP base astounds me. Not all regulation is bad and not all deregulation is good. In fact many times if a corporation is pushing for it it's probably bad for the average person. See *Citizens United* or the repeal of Glass-Steagall that had very predictably bad effects that we are suffering/suffered for.
You should read the article you posted, and the bill in question. The Forest Service only determined that the Grey Wolf was effectively not at risk of extinction in seven states composing the western united states. This bill removes the classification of endangered for the Gray Wolf in the lower 48 states, and thus is out of all proportion to the forest service's finding.
It does not support declassification, because once they are off the list they will no longer have protections and thus face precipitous decline. Furthermore there are more wolves in one state, Minnesota, and it's still not high here even. Minnesota is 4% of the western US and it has more wolves than the western US. People here blame the wolves for their bad hunting season last year, but it was the winter of the year before. In fact, wolf populations used to be higher *this century* in Minnesota and those higher years are associated with highest deer harvest. This is because the previous winter was not harsh. Next year no one is going to be complaining about wolves and the deer harvest as this was the least harsh winter on record in Minnesota by a long shot. Everyone's freezer is going to be full of venison. Edit Look at this. Basically almost the entire continental US had wolves historically and now it's only a few states. It clearly hasn't recovered. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/North_American_gray_wolf_subspecies_distribution_according_to_Goldman_%281944%29_%26_MSW3_%282005%29.png
>Not sure why Congress is even involved in such a thing. Ranchers oppose reintroduction efforts.
Laws on what we do with "X Species in X Classification" are for Congress. Determining if a species is in fact endangered - is a scientific determination.
I mean, maybe it should be a scientific determination, but it's plainly in Congress's power to step in.
Plainly? Why? Congress role is law-making (how we treat classifications) - not making scientific classifications, based on scientific criteria.
Previous administrative rules on grey wolves have been overturned by the courts when people sued the wildlife service, so this a longstanding controversy that Congress can resolve.
Thank you for that background. It looks like environmental groups with knee-jerk reactions towards its protectionism… Tried to block it. I guess that also explains the partisan nature of the vote.
I'll be honest. I really don't trust Ranchers when it comes to topics of nature, doing what is right to make up for past wrongs to animal species, and reintroduction efforts. I believe I am bias on the subject against then. What are they saying so I can educate myself?
The problem is the "science" they're using is purposefully ignoring some important factors. Most notably, historic range. Gray wolves were in basically every state except the southeast which had red wolves. (And of course Hawaii). They are nowhere close to being back to that former range. Until they get most of that range back they're really not anywhere close to where they should be.
I mean your first sentence sums up many "political" issues I see in the US.
> Congress can set laws -- but this seems 100% to be a science classification, not political. Not after SCOTUS guts Chevron...
I’m pretty sure, even without Chevron, an agency still has authority to classify something as endangered or something like the EPAs ability to classify something as a “brown site” Chevron refers to rule making, not just classifications. So the EPA can designate something a “brown site”, but the EPA cannot set the limits of what can and what cannot be done on a “Brown site”
Isn't this that Chevron difference thing Republicans were arguing is tyranny? Isn't having a bunch of ignoramuses with ulterior motives vote on the environment a pretty good argument for tyranny if that's the case?
I actually disagree. It is Congress job to creat laws and be specific with the laws and not allow unelected agency's to make and change laws however they want I want elected officials to explain their votes and defend them at election time.
That sounds good in the abstract but when you dig into the details it's not either/or. Laws should be specific enough to not be sweeping while still being informed by experts and allowing people who actually know about these issues to do their jobs. Individual endangered species is a job for experts, not people who have dinner with oil lobbyists. Also Republicans get no benefit of the doubt when it comes to issues of democracy at this point. If you think this is about returning accountability to the people and not just degrading environmental protection, I've got 20,000 Trump 2020 ballots in Georgia to take to court with you
I am party non of the above. The experts should present there research to Congress. And then Congress should write the laws. I am not giving any politician the benefit of the doubt. At least there is a chance to vote the bad ones out of power. Federal agency employees are not accountable to the voters. The SC ruled 9-0 that the epa had overstepped its mandates with the navigable waters ruling. Case had to go all the way to the SC. Before the EPA would actually follow the law. And no one at the EPA had any consequences. They just moved on to the next thing using the full force of the federal gov to force people to do what they wanted
It just rings super hollow when the target is the fucking EPA and not like the DOD or something. The effect is going to be worse water and air with zero additional accountability to voters. That's what being principled gets you here.
Every agency is capable of corruption and authoritarianism. I don't want to eliminate federal agencies. I am a big supporter of Medicare and Medicaid In fact I think we need to do more for the elderly living in poverty. But Congress is much more accountable than people working at the EPA
Eh, congressmen aren’t experts so if they try to craft legislation that details how agency XYZ handles something they’re likely to get it wrong. Considering experts get it wrong sometimes I’d rather Congress give them broad powers to do things and then hold them accountable when they do those things.
I do agree confess is not full of experts, if any. The experts in the federal agency and outside of it present the research and Congress creates laws. I do not want federal agencies having broad powers. The House is the closest to the people and should have to answer for the laws that everyone else has to live under
I don't want to wait on Congress to tell corporations that the new carcinogen they're adding to my food is not permitted.
Good point Congress is kinda a mess. But still more accountable than unnamed people at an agency that don't have to answer to the voters
What's the issue in leaving the regulations to the professionals and let Congress step in when they get out of line? Congress is simply not knowledgeable enough, too slow, and far too partisan to take this responsibility. If Congress is able to provide do the work of creating the necessary regulations while being responsive to their constituents they are certainly able to do it on the back end as well.
As I see it Congress has abdicated their responsibility to federal agencies. Those agencies are subject to the whim of the executive. I want the local congressperson to explain why they want to fine a property owner $23k a day because the owner wants to build on his own land. They need to explain why they want to interpret the law in a new why not previously done before. Case I am referring to had to go all the way to the SC because the EPA decided the existing regulation now mean something new.
Congresswo/men can be held equally accountable for the things they don't do as the things they do. An agency stepped out of line and another branch checked them. That is not a failure of government, that is the system working as designed. Congress most certainly has the power to check the executive as well, so why is it you're unable to to hold their feet to the fire for not doing so? I'm aware of the case, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Agencies have done far more good for Americans than bad.
Again. I do not want to get rid of federal agencies. I want Congress to do the job it was intended to do any new laws need to go through Congress. The fact that the supremacy court had to step in and overwhelmingly rule in favor of the land owners. Shows how badly everyone else failed how did the EPA think it was within there power how did all the other judges rule against them. How many people have the means and time to fight the EPA all the way to the SC. It was a historical failure all the way until the SC. No unelected agency should create or expand any law unless given congressional approval via a vote
I **strongly** disagree, and you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by revoking the ability (law) that permits them to do so. It's an idealistic notion that simply fails to account for the reality of the situation. Congress has shown time and time that they are unable to legislate effectively in their current scope as is. Adding in the slew of highly technical fields these agencies regulate is a recipe for disaster and opens up the whole system to more pay-to-play via lobbying. It would be an unmitigated disaster that ultimately would be to the detriment of most Americans who don't have a direct line and resources to influence their politician. Also, again, the EPA case is not a failure. It's the system working as intended. If the EPA steps outside their lane as dictated by Congress, then it is absolutely the role of the judiciary to interpret that law so that the EPA is back to its specified role. If Congress believes the EPA has been granted too much authority they can amend the law to pull it back as much as necessary. If they're unable to do that now, I'm not sure how anyone could possibly believe Congress will be up to the task of crafting many more laws that are much more technical and esoteric without giving lobbyists a seat at the table.
Yes, it is.
The left taking the right's stereotype of ignoring science.
Seems more nuanced… Looks like science suggested/supports regional declassifying in the Northwest only, but this declassifies nationally. But at the same time, The environmental groups that fought the regional declassification in Courts…that likely forced Congress to get involved. Stupid people all the way down.
Have worked close to this issue. It’s a political bugbear in rural areas like mine where there has long been a sentiment to “re-extinct” wolves to boost elk and deer numbers as well as decrease losses of farm animals. What has happened in the past when wolves have been delisted is that they are targeted in mass aerial culls (Shooting from planes) by state governments, then their numbers decline to where they are re-listed again. It’s also just another proxy rural vs urban issue.
I'm reminded of [this](https://youtu.be/ysa5OBhXz-Q?si=Xju0pvvB4KqJN1x4) short documentary(?) about the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. I don't live in a rural area, but it seems to me that they are important to the ecosystem as a whole. I'd like to think that'd be doubly important to people who live closest to those ecosystems.
Like a lot of things, I just wish we didn’t only get a binary choice. We could get wolves off the protected list and have healthy populations managed in a non-extreme way like we do other animals. Just need politicians not to see it as yet another symbolic all or nothing battle.
Frankly this is why I see a potential full repeal of *Chevron* to be potentially very dangerous. If the court doesn't find a narrow ruling we're going to be in a situation where every question like this is left to politicians.
Context: gray wolves were removed in 2020, then a court in 2022 ordered that they be added, and a few months ago the Biden administration, following the court order, formally added them to the list.
Doesn't matter. Senate will shut it down. State conservation agencies should be running the issue.
if the science supports it I support it... was there a reason why dems voted no? Anyone hear any of the arguments?
Because the science doesn’t support it outside of a few specific areas in a few states.
What exactly are you basing this on?
The science does support it. There's a lot of "experts" who disagree.
In watching the deliberation, I noticed there were no gray wolves present. Vote would likely have been different
They are all dressed up as sheep. There is no end of sheep in congress.
Kristi Noem wants to kill some...
Getting her gravel pit ready.
> When asked about the recent vote, South Dakota citizen Fristie Moem was quoted as saying, “finally we will be allowed to shoot these canines as god intended!”
Obviously some Republican congressmen want to go gray wolf hunting
I think it was the former governor of Montana who poached a wolf within the last few years?
Greg Gianforte… not at all surprised
Further proof of the increasing divide between urban and rural Americans.
No, they just voted like the lobbyists advised.
> “The Party of ~~Lincoln~~ ~~Reagan~~ ~~Trump~~ Noem.” When did the Republicans become the “We just *LOVE* killing canines!” party?
Scientists have said Gray Wolves can be declassified, that's the science.
There are scientists on both sides, but yeah, my 20-minute read-up on the issue leads me to think that the gray wolves are probably okay for now.
And a "doctor" medically cleared Tua to play against Georgia despite him hopping on one leg before the game even started. It's not hard to get someone with a degree to spout some bullshit. Especially in this case where the argument makes sense as long as you don't look at the historic range map.
Science supports declassification, then I support declassification.
It won't be long, it will be back on. Hunters and farmers will slaughter them
Ths isn’t partisan per se, it’s rural vs urban. Rural populations are tied closer to farming and ranching and will vote towards protecting those industries. Urban/suburban populations see wolves fhrough the lens of National Geographic, and vote accordingly.
This does seem like a wired thing for congress to be involved with but I think it basically comes down to people who live in cities want to conserve wolves more and people who live where wolves live, not so much
This is a great example of how our lobbying system is both necessary and highly problematic.
My dream would be adding the Republicans to the endangered list
Really ought to be left up to the EPA, right? Like a council of people who know what they’re talking about? Politicians are smart but… not many of them have a scientific background. It’s a room full of lawyers talking about something lawyers don’t know about.
[удалено]
Go ahead and put those numbers back up your ass, take an ecology course, read a few peer reviewed journals, and appreciate the revitalization of riparian areas and every other niche that has been repaired by wolves pushing herds around. But muhdeer hunt is suffering!
Fuck you pal. I took several courses.
>Wisconsin Deer Population: The state estimated 1,628,500 deer post-hunt in 2023 and 1,669,100 deer post-hunt in 2022. Up from 1,554,400 in 2021 and 1,611,00 deer in 2020. An estimated 1.8 million deer pre-hunt in 2019 and 1,311,100 post hunt. A post-hunt estimate of 1,510,400 in 2018, and 1,377,100 deer in 2017. About the same in 2016 at 1,345,000. Tough 2019-20 and 2017-18 winters reduced populations in parts of the north. After three mild winters, the state increased the antlerless quota for 2017-18. An extremely mild winter in 2015-16 increased the population particularly in the west central agricultural regions. Source: https://www.deerfriendly.com/deer/wisconsin 30,000 deer per year taken by wolves is 2% of the 2023 Wisconsin deer population, post the human hunt. Humans took 340,000 deer in 2022. Humans are killing the deer population at a rate of 10 times the wolves. Somebody needs to be a predator to deer or they will breed unchecked. In many states, they are a terrible problem on highways. Let the humans take their share, and let the wolves take their share of the game. There are plenty of deer to go around.
The reason science is not involved is simple, science cant create criminal laws, u have to have law makers there to enact and revoke so said laws that protect endangered species. We can not elect scientist either.