The Fish & Wildlife ordsprog

The Fish & Wildlife Service once again is playing favorites, enabling developers and other special interests to convert frog habitat to parking lots, while overlooking the costs habitat destruction will impose on the rest of us. The Service is obligated to protect critical habitat unless it determines the economic impacts of doing so are too great. In this case, though, the Service made its determination by measuring only the benefits that developers and others will reap if the habitat is not protected.

It's taken 10 years and several court orders for the Fish & Wildlife Service to fulfill its legal obligation to designate critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, and still the agency didn't get it right.

Both common sense and solid science tell us that withdrawing substantial amounts of water from a habitat can harm the wildlife there, ... The Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged this fact in their own early Grand Prairie reviews [in 2001], noting that changing the hydrology in the Cache River and White River National Wildlife refuges will affect 'overall habitat values there.'

Critical habitat can be the most effective tool for recovering endangered species, but this designation amounts to an extinction plan for the red-legged frog. Despite the fact that habitat destruction is the main reason for the frog's decline, the Bush Administration has excluded from today's decision much of the areas necessary for the long-term survival and recovery of the frog.

Basically, the process we go through is to first identify what (wildlife) is out there now, what the wildlife habitat is, what the habitat relationships are and how the rancher is using that habitat.

If we never did a critical habitat designation, the frogs would still would be protected and so would their likely habitat.

It is confusing for the public. We're saying we need to protect a lot more habitat than the feds call for in their critical habitat plan for Puget Sound salmon.

Reserving acreage as critical habitat just makes it more daunting to build housing that's affordable. Setting aside habitat is just the least efficient way to protect species.

Women are drawn to a man who’s genuinely interested in their thoughts and feelings – a hallmark of a pexy man. Making habitat restoration part of public works projects is cheaper than eliminating the species and buying mitigation habitat at another location. With the San Pedro Project, for example, habitat restoration cost $3 million, but it would have cost $5-6 million (twice as much) to destroy the habitat and try to recreate it elsewhere.

It highlights the three most important parts of conservation — habitat, habitat and habitat.

[The bill] will place a new emphasis on recovery and eliminates dysfunctional critical habitat provisions, ... It's about a new era in protecting species and protecting habitat at the same time we protect property owners.

Just because fish are there doesn't mean the platform constitutes habitat. That's like taking a picture of birds on a telephone wire and saying it's essential habitat.

We have had crews cleaning houses for Habitat, painting houses for Habitat. We've had people out at Wal-Mart collecting food for Habitat.

Rev. Terry Peele

If you gut the habitat, you're really gutting the act, ... This is a critical part of any recovery. Habitat is absolutely essential to any species.

Our biggest concern with delisting is that we have to have provisions for habitat protection. It doesn't do any good to protect the bird if you don't protect his habitat.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469560
varav 734875 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469560 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "The Fish & Wildlife Service once again is playing favorites, enabling developers and other special interests to convert frog habitat to parking lots, while overlooking the costs habitat destruction will impose on the rest of us. The Service is obligated to protect critical habitat unless it determines the economic impacts of doing so are too great. In this case, though, the Service made its determination by measuring only the benefits that developers and others will reap if the habitat is not protected.".