"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
"riverman" wrote in message
...
For those who insist that Bush really has had no different impact on our
resources than anyone else....

http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...6292101830.xml


But Bob Lohn, a regional administrator for the National Marine
Fisheries Service, said that as a practical matter, the level of
protection for the fish will not change.

"By incorporating more accurate data about the presence of salmon, we
were able to conclude that the area occupied by salmon was one-fifth
as large as the area proposed in the older designations," Lohn said.


Enjoy the wild places while they last.
--riverman

Sounds to me like a land grab to me by some enthusiastic
Environmentalist in a previous administration counted 5X higher than
what their data should have indicated was really needed. TnT

Possibly, or more likely they included a buffer zone to include watershed
land that is not actually inhabited, but who's ecological health they deem
important to the salmon habitat. The developers challenged that a) the
financial impacts on them were not considered enough, and b) the proposed
buffer land was not essential *enough* to the fish. Its that "enough" that
worries me; its a degradation of our preservationist values in favor of
development. When it comes to preserving our natural resources (the kind
that only exist if you leave them alone), we need the same sense of
'resolve' that the Admin prides itself on in other arenas, but we're not
getting it. What is landmark about this ruling is that is sides the Feds
with the developers; it agrees that we don't have to so protectionist in our
environmental stance, and sets the stage to completely reinterpret the EPA
and associated laws. It puts the burden of defining *enough* on the
conservationists, not the developers.

Here's a related article, but with the same amount of spin from the other
side of the debate:
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.or...ritical_ha.htm

In addition to the precent of compromising of standards of environmental
protection, what concerns me in that article is the last part, about whether
or not a species is delisted. The feds recently ruled that hatchery fish are
the same as 'wild' fish, therefore if hatchery fish are released in a
watershed, then the population is no longer endangered. That will change the
nature of a region entirely, from a natural one to a completely managed one.

A google search on "salmon california washington critical habitat" shows
that this is the tip of an iceberg, with much history of legal battling
between preservationists and developers. Interesting reading so far.

--riverman