An excerpt:
The injunction and the hoops through which the corps now must jump before the judge will consider letting it resume the project provide a classic example of how a well-intended law is so easily abused. But the case also presents enormous opportunities for environmentalists in all 50 states to sidetrack projects they oppose simply by demanding the project operator disprove something that cannot be proved.2. From a short article in the online version of E/The Environmental Magazine here:
If this ruling stands, don't be surprised to see all manner of fauna arise from the Boot Hill of evolutionary history just long enough to stop unpopular projects.
Meanwhile, farmers in the region are incensed, complaining that two inconclusive sightings of the bird a couple of years ago shouldn't be enough to jeopardize a project they say is key to the production of soybean, cotton and rice in eastern Arkansas.
4 comments:
So, this is exactly the reason we were all arguing the case for IBWO's continued existence needed to be rock solid - I'm sure the last thing Cornell ever wanted to do was give ammunition to right-wing anti-conservationists but that's what has happened ...
Funny how no-one is posting this sort of stuff to Birdforum. I suppose they would get chucked off if they did !?
Instead of IBWO's, we should call them WMD's-
"Woodpeckers of Massive Disruption"
Can anyone come up with something better?
Woodpeckers of Mass Delusion
Post a Comment