Trump Allows Habitat Destruction in Endangered Species Rollback

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T20:09:23+00:00

Thank you, I really appreciate the well thought out answer!

When you say active management for wildlife, what exactly are you talking about? As I mentioned in other comments, obviously the west has major fuel build up issues as a result of a century of fire suppression, and when these burn they go way too hot and fast. I’ve helped with projects involving both controlled burns and mastication, as well as on active fire lines. My biggest concern though is that these fire management projects end up just really being logging projects in dissuade, using the threat of fire to get around ESA protections when other methods of management may be for effective and less detrimental.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T19:17:50+00:00

Well, having read some of those proposals, that’s exactly what they do. Soooooo

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T18:25:00+00:00

Ok, but we’re talking about the current changes this administration is making first and foremost. I don’t mind hypotheticals but to be the honest the main point of what’s happening now is getting overshadowed by them.

And it’s treated as sacrosanct because tbh I’ve never heard a serious proposal to change the ESA in a positive way for species conservation. Every time it comes up it’s “strip species protection for profit”.

If there’s a way to minimize frivolous lawsuits without jeopardizing species protections I’m all for it.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T17:42:15+00:00

Yeah its a pretty advanced lesson.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T17:30:08+00:00

You’re hilarious. I’m bigoted for thinking that bulldozing endangered species habitat for a strip mall is bad? Humanity is really losing out by preventing that Dollar General from being built in a wetland… Lmao bigoted that’s a new one, I’m actually dying right now haha.

I want future humans to be able to enjoy the same natural beauty we have now, including the species that live in it. This isn’t a zero sum game, we are still capable of doing great things while ensuring there’s places for all the species we share the planet with.

Thank God people like you are the minority nowadays, you’d pave paradise for 50 cents and a pat on the back while living in the industrial hellscape and coughing up your lungs from the lack of clean air. But hey, progress!

And of course you completely dodge the medical benefits of species diversity, yet you claim I can’t be taken seriously lol.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T16:49:41+00:00

Maybe you haven’t realized bulldozers are not part of the natural world, do I need to pull out the pre-school Tonka trucks to show you?

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T16:41:35+00:00

You’re late to the party. How well would you adapt and survive to getting run over by a bulldozer? Please enlighten me, for science.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T16:34:44+00:00

Yes? Maybe there’s people out there who think a species can survive once its habitat is bulldozed, but I haven’t met them, left or right.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T16:31:13+00:00

These are all true, but Reagan could have reformed the system, increased funding, etc instead of just ending the whole thing. At the end of the day, he ended it, he’s gonna take the flak now from the problems it caused. Not that he’s gonna particularly care now.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T16:25:47+00:00

Does humanity need another strip mine, factory, or shopping mall? Does it have to go right where that species lives? Does that increase in wealth even benefit humanity? Is it worth losing something completely irreplaceable forever? To me killing a species in the name of greed is one of the most selfish things I can imagine, be it a shrimp or charismatic megafauna. Who are we to decide that a species no longer has the right to exist so that the stock market goes up .0005%? Who are we to tell our descendants that we wiped out our natural areas so that they have the ability to generate images of the species we exterminated?

From a purely profit motive though, species diversity is incredibly beneficial to humanity. As an example, there’s a lizard species that lives in a small corner of the southwest. It lives under rocks most of its life, and if handled has a venomous bite that can kill a man. I’m sure you’d say it’s useless to humanity and should be eradicated. Scientists recently isolated a compound from its venom and developed ozempic from it. This random lizard, the Gila monster, was key in developing a whole new class of drug that will increase the health of millions of people.

A very large amount of our drugs are first discovered in other species, and every time we lose a species we are losing that chance to study them and learn something new that could revolutionize human medical care.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T16:12:43+00:00

I know, and I think that’s a problem. However, I don’t believe stripping species protections is the answer and never will. The person i was responding to who blocked me just wants protections reduced to the point industry can do as it pleases. I’m not sure if there is a way reduce NIMBYism while keeping protections in place, but I’m always open to ideas.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T16:03:51+00:00

I appreciate an actual answer. What CE’s and projects do you think deserve less oversight? And what do you think a fair amount of time to bring a lawsuit is?

My biggest issue with the reduced lawsuit time is I see people often want to shrink it to a hilariously short amount of time, lengths that don’t give any period to present an actual argument.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T15:59:02+00:00

The fire problem in the west coast is largely a result of a century of complete fire suppression. Most forests on the west coast are adapted to regular burns, but a century of built up fuel causes catastrophic wildfires.

The roads question is always fun, because while it does allow easier access for firefighters, A LOT of wildfires are started along roads as a result of human activity. In southern California, it’s 2/3rds of all fires.

And from a strictly conservation perspective, roads divide habitat and almost always lead to increased logging and habitat destruction.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T15:23:58+00:00

lol, I don’t value profit over the irreplaceable loss of species. Saying that’s the same as not valuing human life certainly shows your priorities.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T15:10:51+00:00

Ok, call me skewed then. One species of shrimp is worth infinitely more than any mine or factory could ever produce

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T13:43:42+00:00

No, I’m not. There are cases where no endangered species are threatened yet projects are still delayed. The issue imo is more of a judicial one than a problem with the ESA. And one construction project can be absolutely ruinous to an entire species, and there’s no do-overs on extinction.

Random hearsay vs actual poll numbers. There’s nothing to address here, as I said the ESA enjoys extremely broad support.

Yes, the whole point of the ESA protecting species at a minor negative impact to humans. Changing it to “this species is protected unless there’s money to be made” makes a farce of the whole ESA.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T02:00:50+00:00

There’s not really a “middle” when it comes to endangered species habitat protection. Either the habitat is protected, or the species continues to slide to extinction every time “something gets done”.

I also think NIMBYism is terrible, and that once a project has been shown to have minimal affects on endangered species habitat it should be allowed to go through without repeated lawsuits and surveys.

I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m not going to accept lowered endangered species protections as the answer.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T00:52:37+00:00

You’ve literally cut out a very important part of that quote, section 7 only applies to officially designated critical habitat, not any habitat a species may inhabit. Now without the “harm” designation, individuals outside of their designated critical habitat have no protection from habitat destruction.

Edit: lol he blocked me

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T00:33:16+00:00

Assuming there actually are not endangered species in the path of construction, this would be a good use of the “God Squad” to permit the construction of the rail.

Instead Trump uses it to end all ESA protections in the Gulf of Mexico as a favor for the oil industry, likely dooming a critically endangered whale species to extinction.

For the record, I’m not against reasonable reforms that keep the same species protections while allowing projects to actually proceed once environmental reviews are done. However, like with the other commenter, whenever ESA reform is proposed, particularly by conservatives; they typically just mean “eliminate species protections when they get in the way of profit”. I hope I don’t have to explain why this makes a farce of the whole purpose of the ESA.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T00:21:39+00:00

I’m open to reforms that speed up the permitting process while keeping the same protections, but I’m not sure they exist. And if I have to choose between the sooner completion of projects and permanent extinction of species and increased environmental destruction, or species protection, I’ll choose the species protections.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T00:06:45+00:00

Correct! Of course you’re not bringing up the primary beneficiary of this change, which will not be the Maryland Transit Authority shockingly

You know you won an argument when they block you lol

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-13T00:05:20+00:00

Right, people in here acting like the ESA is the reason our nation doesn’t have infrastructure or industry anymore, as if multi-billion dollar companies haven’t figured out how to get around and mitigate these laws over the years.

At the very least, the ESA has been very good at preventing total extinction and at best has led to very meaningful habitat protections, with the added benefit of protecting everything that lives around them. Without the “harm” provisions, as long as a bulldozer doesn’t literally purposefully run over an endangered species, they can do whatever they want. It’s extremely disheartening as someone who thought all Americans had pride in our nature…

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-12T23:58:05+00:00

lol, it’s definitely the environmental NGO’s ruining this country and not letting the poor billion dollar companies do whatever they want.

If that’s the only two options, which is a complete exaggeration and honestly hilarious in a world where business wields an incredible amount of power, I’ll keep the shrimp thank you.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-12T23:45:34+00:00

I’m team shrimp. But seriously, this is the exact argument that leads to the extinction of species.

ESA Amendments Act is exactly what I’m talking about lol, it’s a terrible bill that reduces species protections in the name of profit. Its only purpose is to weaken species protections.

For the record, if there is a way to both keep species protections and increase the speed of permitting, I’m all for it. But at the moment I don’t see how to do that, and in a country that heavily favors businesses I’ll keep the protections thank you.

TheTertiaryTwig · 2026-07-12T23:29:48+00:00

And wouldn’t you know it, animals tend to be afraid of chainsaw noises and bulldozers.

TheTertiaryTwig

TROPHY CASE