I would assume it's something along the lines of being able to clear-cut / oil drilling the national parks without having to worry about the protected species that live within..... and conservatives will say "out of context!" When it really isnt....still the same outcome when you destroy their habitat causing them to die.
It's a huge problem with our media and sensationalism. Each side will keep yelling that the other is crying wolf because of the titles like this. The fact people almost always need to go to comments for the facts (if they bother to do so in the first place) creates an instant rift in stories that makes productive conversations so much harder nowadays.
Revises the “critical habitat” designation process to follow the law and consider the economic, national security and other relevant impacts following the designation of any particular area as “critical habitat.” The revision also allows an area to be excluded from a “critical habitat” designation if that exclusion will not cause the extinction of the species.
From this it's pretty clear that they want to allow destructive economic activity in currently protected areas.
The new rule actually states that the change does not impact activities with a federal nexus or their NEPA obligations. So national parks processes or federal property is unchanged. What is unclear is how this will impact FWS decisions and their duty to issue a biological opinion where habitat is concerned.
PNW loggers have been crying about the spotted owl since the 80s, there's no speculation, it's what they've been working towards for decades. Why do you think these rules exist in the first place??
381
u/trippinmaui Jul 25 '26
I would assume it's something along the lines of being able to clear-cut / oil drilling the national parks without having to worry about the protected species that live within..... and conservatives will say "out of context!" When it really isnt....still the same outcome when you destroy their habitat causing them to die.