Still don't know how I feel about this concept.
Posted 25 July 2014 - 02:16 PM
What do you all think? Why?
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."
Posted 25 July 2014 - 02:56 PM
Posted 25 July 2014 - 03:01 PM
Posted 25 July 2014 - 06:39 PM
Of course this from that state that de-listed spotted turtles because so many development projects were held up by "rare" turtles. No prob, we'll delist 'em and let the bulldozers roll.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 09:58 AM
The mitigation strategy where one wetlands can be replaced by another that was partially destroyed can still be a problem for many reasons including a scenario where the new wetlands is in a different basin (or sub-basin) from the original. There is significant tension between economic, social, and environmental interests that exists between, among, and within stakeholders. Interventions and incentives need to be carefully addressed and/or created to optimize the shared value.
The focus now is restoring partially-destroyed natural wetlands (usually drained and farmed wetlands) for mitigation, and if done judiciously it really can create good quality natural wetland habitat.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 12:57 PM
Unfortunately, in a political/economic culture that is ruled by the developers, with the guardians of the environment firmly in their pockets, "mitigation" is just a tool to get around the annoying conservationists. Way cheaper than protracted legal battles.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users