In a stupefying (but alas, unsurprising) ruling, the California Coastal Commission has decided that a mandate from Congress to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to strengthen the US-Mexico border should be set aside because additional security measures could threaten some endangered birds.
However, the California Coastal Commission concluded Wednesday that the last phase of the project "does not properly balance border patrol and resource-protection needs." The independent, quasi-judicial state agency voted unanimously against the project.How many birds are we talking about here?The report said the "environmentally sensitive habitat" is home to three endangered birds: the least Bell's vireo, Southwestern willow flycatcher and coastal California gnatcatcher.
A biological assessment said the project would "harass" one pair of least Bell's vireos and a one pair of Southwestern flycatchers by removing from their habitat nearly 3 acres of willow scrub and 4 acres of mule-fat scrub. Three gnatcatchers would also be "harassed" by the removal of sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral in nearly 50 acres.So we're talking what? Seven freaking birds? Are you people utterly and completely insane? How many millions of dollars have already been spent on these birds, even coming up with this evaluation? How many more man-hours are going to be wasted? How many thouands of illegal immigrants are going to cross because of these seven birds?
If you like birds so much, I'll flip you one anytime! Argh!
<sarcasm>I think you're missing the point. Think of all the illegal immigrants who would be harassed if we really built this wall. That would be the real tragedy.</sarcasm>
I'm with SS. The issue isn't a few birds. The CCC just doesn't want to disturb the routine of the (not endangered) Latin American Flocking Migrant. Any old pretense will do, and the Endangered Species Act gives them all the cover they need.
Time to put some hard limits on costs vs. benefits.
The Endangered Species Act was never intended as a tool to bring about wise resource management. It was intended as a last-gasp emergency measure to protect species that are on the brink of extinction. If you want policies that don't smack of Herculean, last-ditch efforts, you have to implement those policies sooner, before 99% of the coastal sage scrub habitat that these birds inhabit has been turned into pricey houses.
According to your logic, Michael, the 50 acres of additional habitat loss is no big deal, because it only involves the loss of seven birds. And obviously that would be equally true of the next 50 acres, and the next 50 acres, and so on. This is, in fact, exactly the logic that has brought us to the current situation. So your definition of "sane" policy is one that would lead inevitably and swiftly to the birds' extinction.
There's a book I'm currently reading that I recommend highly: The Song of the Dodo, by David Quammen (ISBN: 0684827123). It talks about island biogeography, and extinction, and what it means in the context of the evolution of life on earth. And among the other insights I hope you might derive from reading it is the recognition that causing permament extinction in pursuit of temporary convenience might not be such a sane behavior after all.
For humans to find a way to live that doesn't involve driving large numbers of other species to extinction is, in the larger context, a practical necessity. But for me, and for many others who think like I do, it is more than that. It is also a moral imperative. Henry Beston summed this up well in that famous "other nations" passage. But in googling for that, I came across this other, less-quoted one, which seemed pretty apt:
"However various may be the tasks which man is given to attend to upon this earth, his major occupation is a concern with life. To accomplish this duty, he must honor life, even if he honors it but blindly, knowing that life has a sacredness and mystery which no destruction of the poetic spirit can diminish."
I pretty much agree with that. If that's insane in your view, then go ahead and call me insane.
And I guess I might as well give you the more-famous Beston passage. From The Outermost House, another book I highly recommend (ISBN: 080507368X):
“We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.”
You can keep the rude gestures, Michael. I prefer a world with gnatcatchers in it.
JC: But why? I fail to see how these birds add one iota of benefit to anyone. In contrast, the thousands of illegal immigrants that cross every year hurt millions of people, including themselves.
Animals are fine and dandy, but their inherent worth is much less than that of humans. If someone wants to protect them, they should buy them and their land. Get a group together to buy the land and leave it in its "natural" state, if that's what you want. If most Americans understood the cost of animal protection though I doubt we'd decide to do it as a society.
And really, I don't think there's any reason to. Species go extinct all the time, generally having nothing to do with the actions of humans. From a irreligious standpoint it's particularly absurd to care about species that are being selected against.
If you like them merely for aesthetics, fine, but don't impose the costs of your preferences on everyone else. Spend your own money to save the animals, not mine.
Your analysis of the phenomenon of modern extinctions is ill-informed and naive. Do some research (the Quammen book I mentioned would be a good place to start), and we can talk. Until then, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't feel like debating with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Mr. Williams...
I'm with you. However, I also think we should place every living thing, except humans, on an endangered list, just to be on the safe side.
It also seems that your earlier post was taken out of context. The issue is not one of driving these seven birds to extinction, but simply one of 'harrassing' them in their environment. Mankind should win that one, at the every least.
Plug: I'm not sure what you mean about placing every species on an "endangered list", but otherwise, yes, people seemed eager to misconstrue my earlier post.
Sarcasm...for the benefit of environmaniacs.
As another example...
A couple of years ago I had a vacation home in a small northern California town (pop. about 9000). We had a Kmart, Albertsons (Lucky), Hollywood Video and a few other stores in a typical shopping mall. The developers wanted to expand the major stores into land they already owned - about 50 additional acres. Some people living nearby were anti-development and looked to the E.I.R. (Environmental Impact Report) to prevent it. They somehow determined that the 'California Red Legged frog' (endangered) inhabited the proposed area of development. The developers agreed to set aside 10-15 acres so as not to disturb the supposed habitat, but that still was not good enough. Many independant searches were made for the frog, over many months at the developer's expense, but none were found. Eventually the proposed development (after 8 years of wrangling) was denied because...
The land was SIMILAR to the habitat where the frogs were LIKELY to breed. They did eventually find a RL frog, almost 30 miles away!
EnvironMENTALism, at it's best.
Plug: Sarcasm, got it!
As for your real life story, it doesn't surprise me one bit. People who think "corporations" have all the power in America are delusional.