Jump to content


Photo

Still don't know how I feel about this concept.


6 replies to this topic

#1 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 25 July 2014 - 02:16 PM

I won't pretend to be a savvy politician or conservationist. This idea of giving credits to people for doing "right", so they can do "not right" later, and still be contributing to the best for threatened species confuses me on ethical and end-goal considerations.

http://www.fws.gov/e...L FORMATTED.pdf


What do you all think? Why?
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#2 Guest_don212_*

Guest_don212_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 July 2014 - 02:55 PM

sounds like the policy where they allow you to destroy natural wetlands if you create an artificial one, not good

#3 Guest_gerald_*

Guest_gerald_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 July 2014 - 02:56 PM

If the new Pre-Listing Conservation Policy helps save some habitat from pre-emptive habitat destruction, then yes it could be a useful tool. ("We'd better clear our land before that critter gets endangered listing and the Feds come take away our land use rights"). Of course species conservation strategies differ vastly depending on habitat, threats, and life-history (aquatic vs terrestrial, migratory vs stationary, long-lived vs short-lived. etc), so no policy is beneficial across the board for all rare species (except maybe China's one-child policy?)

#4 Guest_gerald_*

Guest_gerald_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 July 2014 - 03:01 PM

Don - creating artificial wetlands as mitigation for destroying natural ones is pretty much gone these days; the agencies figured out that it rarely if ever works, and it's no longer an acceptable form of mitigation in most situations. 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.

#5 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 July 2014 - 06:39 PM

I think it's still done in Mass. Mostly used as a Feel Good distraction to allow developers to go hog wild and shut up the conservationists with a pretty little mosquito pool.

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.



#6 Guest_lilyea_*

Guest_lilyea_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 July 2014 - 09:58 AM

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.

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.

#7 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 July 2014 - 12:57 PM

I think the basic concept is good - we have to accept that the developers are gonna develop, regardless. If some sort of mitigation can take place, it's better 'n nuthin.
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