Lreynolds wrote:We want to clarify "incidental take" so that business, industry, communities, and wildlife conservation professionals have a firm idea of what is or is not legal and the process for compliance.
Agree 100%.
Included in that must be strict limits that cannot be negotiated away in the permitting process.
On a
per unit energy basis, all energy sources should be permitted to incidentally kill the same amount of wildlife as all other energy sources.
For example, at present about 2/3rd of our energy comes from oil and gas so about 2/3rd of what is determined as acceptable from the energy industry should be permitted for oil and gas. Wind on the other hand produces less than 3%, so they should be permitted to incidentally kill less than 3% of the energy sector total. As the energy sector grows, the aggregate acceptable incidental killing should not grow, so the per unit energy limits become more strict in order to remain sustainable.
But first we must ask if this really is a problem that needs to be regulated?
https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds.phpGranted their aggregate numbers don't make sense. Their low value for the total is less than the low value for just cats. Assuming they can't add, and the individual numbers aren't garbage.
Cats are by far #1 and kill between 1.4B - 2.4B birds or about 72% of all birds killed.
Building glass is #2 and kills about 0.4B - 1.0B birds or about 18% of all birds killed.
Vehicles are 3rd and kill 0.09B - 0.2B or about 6%.
All other industries combined only kill about 0.1B or about 3% of the birds.
Lreynolds wrote: The Trump administration acted to make it irrelevant by saying the Migratory Bird Treaty Act has no bearing unless the activity itself intends to kill migratory birds.
According to the FWS website, those industries do not appear to be relevant at all. If they are responsible for such a small fraction of all birds incidentally killed, why should they be regulated at all? What is the scientific basis for it? It seems like sound policy based on the information provided by the FWS on their website.
My car comment was not purely sarcastic, but I could have just easily asked about your cat or your windows.
Lreynolds wrote:yes, there is a business cost associated with making sure that an activity doesn't negatively impact environmental health, which happens to include birds
Does the cost justify the benefit? It appears that even if 0 birds were killed by these industries, the net benefit would be negligible compared to the top 3 unregulated sources that kill 97% of the birds according to the FWS.
It is not about not caring for the environment. It is about costly regulation that doesn't make a significant difference.
Maybe the FWS website is all BS, but if it is not, I don't see the basis for regulating this minor factor. If we aren't going to regulate the 97%, what is the justification for regulating the 3%?
And anybody that has a cat that they allow out of the house and got upset about this regulation change is a hypocrite. Anybody that opposes extermination of feral cats and got upset about this regulation is a hypocrite.
The apartment complex I lived in outside Atlanta, we would have dozens of ducklings hatch and in less than a week, we would have but a few ducklings left and a lot of fat cats. It was an immediate massacre every spring. I hate $%*@# cats. Do something about them or don't worry about these other things.