Endangered species protections - too far? or not enough?

[Lynda/WA]

What do you think about species protections? Are we doing overkill and placing protections over human lives and livelihoods. Or are we not doing enough?

[Lynda/WA]

OK - I had hoped to get some general opinions of the law first but here's the story that has prompted me to ask this.

For along time I've heard about farmers encountering problems because of an endangered mouse ect. I'm talking fines over 1,000 for turning over a field that turned out to have an mouse in it or such.

Then there's the problems going on in Klamath Falls OR, I mentioned that in the post about what you would donate 1 millions dollars to. These farmers are in danger of losing their farms because the courts say the water has to be saved for a sucker fish. This is a fish that lived in marshy areas prior to the irrigation system being established over 50 yrs ago. In fact some evidence says it does better with less water. To top it off , by with-holding this water the courts have ensured a local wildlife refuge gets no water either. Many other animals are in danger. At least in this case the danger to human lives is only suicides (2 of every 3 area people going to the local clinic has depression).

Then about a month ago there was a large forest fire. Many of these areas up here are protected. No clearing out of dead trees making it a forest fire waiting to happen. At 5:30 in the morning dispatchers began asking for water drops. That's were they encountered problems. The fire was under control but far from out. The water would have come from a river where protected fish live. The ESA allows for water to be taken from them only in an emergency. A bucket would have scooped water out. At about 12:00 fishery biologists were brought in to determine the impact. The fire dispatchers were still calling for water. Three hours later the approval came through but it was to late. The fire flared up and by 5:30 PM 4 firefighters were dead. Another one is in serious shape.

So now a congressman has called for an investigation. If the fire had been put out when still under control these 2 men and 2 women would still be alive. Why did it take from 5:30 AM until 3 PM to decide if they could take water from a stream to put out a forest fire? Should there be that much red tape? Has it reached the point that agencies/businesses are so worried over being sued over not protecting animals that they are willing to risk human lives?

[jbaxter]

i can understand the frustrations of farms and others who have had thheir livelyhood stopped due to an endangered species. but i also realize that nature is a delicate balance. if we kill off one species then another is missing its main source of food and dies and the endangered species main source of food thrives and can reaks havoc. by the death of one species a whole chain reaction of things can happen. so personally i think we should let nature take it own course and try to maintain habitats for these creatures. it is far easier for us humans to pick up our stuff and move to another area then it is for these creatures.

i remember reading somewhere that according to ecoligists a major fire every so often is good for a forest and that is why the forest service will let some fires burn until they pose a threat to people or their property. as for clearing out deadwood from forests i personally don't think its a good idea since the dead wood provides shelter food and materials for the animals that live there.

there is an area set aside for nature walks near my town we would go there and wlalk thru the 'woods' and go down to the 'river' acutaly its a wooded area around a small stream. we woud hear little animals scurring around see an occaisional skunk or deer. then someon got the idea to clear out the dead wood and thin the trees so that the strong trees could grow quicker. now the only sounds we here are a few buggs abnd occaisional birds. haven't seen a skunk in ages. they did live a large log that fell down near the 'river' its been fun for the kids to watch it decay. to see the woodepecker holes, the termite holes.

personally i think the less we mess with mother nature the better.

janice

[Lynda/WA]

I guess I wasn't clear about the forest fire. They WANTED to put out the fire. You do NOT want a forest fire in a drought year. Plus this was an area that is protected so even a controlled burn isn't allowed under EPA rules. In this case they were calling for water drops because they felt it was neccessary to put OUT the forest fire. Instead they ran into regulations and worries of lawsuits. The result is 4 dead people. I can't think of ANY circumstances were I feel fish lives are more important then human lives! I don't think there should have been any question.

If we were really going to allow nature to take it's course we would let the forest fire burn even if it was in the path of houses. Guess that would be one way to save firefighter lives. Just send them in to pick up the campers, hikers, and homeowners. Let the fire burn out naturally!

My SIL is a dispatcher and BIL is an engineer for BLM. I'll ask them about letting forests burn. Things that they have said so far have led me to believe otherwise. I seem to remember lawsuits over not reacting quickly enough (New Mexico last year?) They have made many comments about enviromentalists making things worse.

As for some animals becoming extinct. I think that is a part of nature as well. I think I heard a figure of 95% of all extinctions happened prior to humans being alive. If the extinction of a creature was going to throw the earth's ecology completely out of wack, wouldn't it already have happened? Nature will take care of things. For example, thousands of people were displaced (via loss of jobs). We had to protect the spotted owl. Now it's starting to cross breed with the common barred owl! So much for protecting it.

Shifts in where animals live are natural also. For example, we have more salmon now in this area then 9,600 years ago. This area was dryer back then. It's feasible that the climates of the earth are doing a another natural shift. So to what year are we going to try and keep nature balanced at? Last year? 100yrs ago? 1,000 years ago? Drought years kill mosquitos. Should we ban killing them during drought years?

And what about the introduction of new species to an area? If the loss of a species is going to wreck havock wouldn't the introduction of a species to that area? That's happening all the time.

Extremist enviromentalists say that humans should be made extinct and *nature* allowed to take it's course. If we REALLY wanted to reduce our impact we would live like the Amish or even MORE back to nature. I think most people only want enviromental rules that impact others. They want other people to move. Other people to face fires without water. I have yet to meet a single person willing to live in the forest without any conveniences. To live in harmony with nature. Anyone on this board NOT live in a house? NOT have a vehicle?

I do think we should use technology to reduce our impact and make things better. Some changes are going to happen. That's natural. We shouldn't fight at the expense of human lives.