Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ain't it great to have an environmentally conscious President? Feds Approve More Fracking [View all]G_j
(40,562 posts)19. a Bush policy embraced by this adminstration, now found to be based on unsettled science
Panel Finds Unsettled Science Behind Proposal to Lift Gray Wolf Protections, Comment Period Reopened
Last edited Tue Feb 11, 2014, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)
http://m.livescience.com/43213-unsettled-science-gray-wolf-peer-review.html
By Megan Gannon, News Editor
Date: 07 February 2014 Time: 04:07 PM ET
The drawn-out battle over the fate of gray wolves in the United States continues.
An independent panel of experts said Friday (Feb. 7) there is wide disagreement about some of the science the Fish and Wildlife Service used to make its case for ousting gray wolves from the Endangered Species list. The review could hinder the FWS proposal to lift federal protections for the animals throughout much of the United States.
"It was a very clean process and we got a unanimous result," said Steven Courtney, one of the scientists charged with setting up the independent panel at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The panel was not taksed with deciding whether or not the gray wolf should be removed from the Endangered Species list. Rather, they were charged with determining whether the FWS recommendation to do so was supported by the best available science, explained Frank Davis, director of the NCEAS.
The experts' main complaint was that the FWS proposal relied too heavily on a 2012 study (published in the FWS's own journal North American Fauna), which determined wolves that once occupied the eastern part of the country were likely a genetically distinct species (Canis lycaon) from the gray wolves in question (Canis lupis). If this were the case, the FWS would not be responsible for ensuring the gray wolf's recovery in the eastern United States.
But scientists on the panel said the results of the 2012 study are not universally accepted or settled. The group decided that FWS officials "had interpreted the science that they used fairly, but there has been a lot of new science on the question of wolf genetics, and that science needs to be brought into that discussion," Davis told Live Science.
The FWS has now reopened its public comment period on the proposal, which it hopes to make a decision on by the end of the year.
..more..
Full Report:
http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/pdf/Final_Review_of_Proposed_rule_regarding_wolves2014.pdf
Photo Essay:
link:http://m.livescience.com/40137-photos-gray-wolves-endangered-status.html|
```````````````````
TELL SECRETARY JEWELL TO DO WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS & PROTECT WOLVES
http://action.endangered.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=16490&sp_ref=28752327.61.2579.f.0.2
Secretary Jewell has said she doesn't have a choice in delisting wolves. She says, "Its about science and you do what the science says."
The panel of scientists commissioned to review the proposal has spoken and we now know that this plan is not supported by science.
In their words,"There was unanimity among the panel that the rule does not currently represent the best available science'."
Tell Secretary Jewell to "do what the science says" and immediately withdraw the draft rule to delist gray wolves
http://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ID=0D493E53-AC54-99DD-52400A7BAA5A6085
Press Release
Service Reopens Comment Period on Wolf Proposal
February 7, 2014
Contacts:
Gavin Shire, 703-346-9123, gavin_shire@fws.gov
Independent scientific peer review report available for public review
Following receipt of an independent scientific peer review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reopening the comment period on its proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List. The Service is making that report available for public review, and beginning Monday, February 10, interested stakeholders will have an additional 45 days to provide information that may be helpful to the Service in making a final determination on the proposal.
The independent scientific peer review was hosted and managed by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a highly respected interdisciplinary research center at the University of California Santa Barbara. At the Services request, NCEAS sponsored and conducted a peer review of the science underlying the Services proposal.
Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information, said Service Director Dan Ashe. We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input.
The peer review report is available online, along with instructions on how to provide comment and comprehensive links relating to the proposal, at http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best available information. Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov under the docket number FWSHQES20130073.
The Service will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means the agency will post any personal information provided through the process. The Service is not able to accept email or faxes. Comments must be received by midnight on March 27.
The Federal Register publication of this notice will be available online Feb. 10 at http://www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/default.cfm by clicking on the 2014 Proposed Rules under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
The Service expects to make final determination on the proposal by the end of 2014.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
139 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Ain't it great to have an environmentally conscious President? Feds Approve More Fracking [View all]
cali
Feb 2014
OP
Eventually, we'll all be living in a chemical dump. ... not too hard to see where
RKP5637
Feb 2014
#1
I don't know what it's "considered," but I can READ IT and tell it's a band-aid on a gut wound
Scootaloo
Feb 2014
#103
It's not going to be easy to hold the Senate when the president is driving away voters
Doctor_J
Feb 2014
#122
One of my major differences with the President is his all-of-the-above energy policy.
TheMathieu
Feb 2014
#6
Yes, I imagine it is quite easy to be coolly dismissive of fracking if it is not in one's back yard.
djean111
Feb 2014
#8
Who would've thought that there'd be a downside to Obama's corporatist ideology?
Romulox
Feb 2014
#13
Wow, how easy it must be for some folks to dismiss all that has been done for the environment
okaawhatever
Feb 2014
#9
a Bush policy embraced by this adminstration, now found to be based on unsettled science
G_j
Feb 2014
#19
thank you for that. I genuinely believe that much of the irrational criticism here on DU comes from
okaawhatever
Feb 2014
#17
North Carolina Republicans destroyed DECADES of progress in a matter of MONTHS.
WorseBeforeBetter
Feb 2014
#57
some of us "troll types here to divide" have been here for over 10 fucking years..
frylock
Feb 2014
#72
You aren't a troll type. Sorry, you're just a regular person with an opinion who expresses it.
okaawhatever
Feb 2014
#73
Now anti-fracking is "trolling". Just like being against torture and war and mandatory for-profit
Doctor_J
Feb 2014
#78
I was making general statements about certain types of behavior. Being against fracking, drones
okaawhatever
Feb 2014
#102
And spying on American citizens, prosecuting whistleblowers, drone strikes, free trade...
cui bono
Feb 2014
#87
So you don't refute those issues then? When you resort to petty name calling you've clearly lost.
cui bono
Feb 2014
#95
Sad thing is that we can't keep using traditional forms of energy and expect a clean environment.
L0oniX
Feb 2014
#25
Yep, party has become mainly a tool of the One Percent in both parties
woo me with science
Feb 2014
#62
I like the idea of having gasoline, reasonably priced electricity and natural gas to heat with.
badtoworse
Feb 2014
#48
Gas now for no water later, fucking stupid and anti - stewardship. FUCK THE FUTURE!
TheKentuckian
Feb 2014
#133
I have confidence that technology will be developed to provide us with both
badtoworse
Feb 2014
#134
Supporters of fracking have no solutions for the damage done in the here and now or in the future
TheKentuckian
Feb 2014
#137
Many of us have taken a small step this fall when natural gas prices went sky high. We stopped
jwirr
Feb 2014
#31
Good guestion. I do not own the home I live in and they changed to using their electrical heat and
jwirr
Feb 2014
#65
Yeah, it's grand. I'm one of those "one issue" voters nowadays. Climate Change being it.
raouldukelives
Feb 2014
#35
Spiking the EPA's own report connecting fracking to water contamination was big clue.
pa28
Feb 2014
#43
Did you comment on these permit applications when they were submitted?
struggle4progress
Feb 2014
#50
To have any impact on agency actions, it's necessary to comment on proposed agency actions
struggle4progress
Feb 2014
#69
You can't influence agency decisions without commenting on agency actions
struggle4progress
Feb 2014
#120
Ain't it great having Bush/Cheney environmental laws and an obstructionist GOP House
Coyotl
Feb 2014
#53
Why did AP have to go throught FOIA to get the information? Was it secret?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2014
#60
And in California, no less. A state well-known for its geologic stability.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2014
#97
Droughts everywhere and aquifers are drying out, but hey, let's allow more fracking!!!!!111111
Vashta Nerada
Feb 2014
#107
"new oil leases have been prohibited since the 1980s" "grandfathered-in platforms. "
Sunlei
Feb 2014
#139