Control of the U.S. Senate could be determined by ... the greater sage grouse?

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by thisnumbersdisconnected, Jul 5, 2014.

  1. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    A bird that inhabits a total of 165 million acres "endangered"? Really??

    The really funny thing? Two of Congress' most environmental-movement indebted members are supporting the bill. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colorado) and Sen. John Walsh (D-Montana) say they "don't want a listing for the grouse" either, and "would rather give states a chance to protect the bird." :rolleyes:

    Translation: Udall, Walsh and all the Democrats are scared to death of the "reactionary voter" in November. This could be a landslide.
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    They only list them as endangered so they can control the land. It is evil.
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    How many grouse are in that area. If it is 1.5 billion I would say they are not in danger. If it is, say, only half a million, they might well be in danger as that would mean there is only 1 grouse for every 312 acres.

    What has caused the population decline of the grouse?

    When did the decline begin?

    Has the trend reversed?


     
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, that's it exactly.

    Estimates are for job losses of somewhere between 5,000 and 31,000 jobs if the protective order is enacted, and land that has been used for grazing and ranching for over 100 years in the same families may no longer be allowed to put to that use. It's criminal. Additionally, the government announced last month it will spend $32 million over the next ten years to help localities preserve the bird.

    The irony is, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does not consider the species endangered at all, but does classify local populations as "at risk." That makes them a "near endangered" species but not in danger of extinction. They've declined form 16 million to about 500,000 over the last 100 years, and has a lot of territory to range on. so have a lot of other species. No where does God say we are to preserve every single species extant during our time on Earth. That assumption on the part of the environmental groups is ludicrous.

    That fact alone makes this nothing more than a political ploy.
     
    #4 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jul 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2014
  5. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    Google might find you your answers :tongue3:
     

Share This Page

Loading...