Page 1 of 1

Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:51 am
by Rich Andrews

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:15 am
by 406 JAMIE
DEMOCRATIC TREE HUGGERS IS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS THEY THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD DO WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY R WRIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING :violent1: :slap: :banghead: .WOW WTF IS THIS WORLD COMING TOO.

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:41 pm
by AirHog
Man

I heard those things taste like chicken!

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:04 am
by Deano
If there were any left, this is a question that a genuine, old school investigative journalist
would be pressing the Governor and the Attorney General for an answer to until they
produced whatever canned, uncomfortably bogus response they may have. :banghead:

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:34 am
by Eric Kimmel
We could only wish
Endangered species law needs to be changed. Big Cypress declared and area just for consideration as critical habitat for the cape sable seaside sparrow south of the Loop or zone 4 as the NPS calls it and has manged it as critical habitat since 2001 and still manages it as such even though that areas was removed from consideration as critical habitat in the federal registry i forget whether it was 2008 or 2010 to this day we are still locked out of this area we call the bird cage since we've been locked out. once an area is even "considered for critical habitat designation the agencies immediately start managing them as if they are

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:24 pm
by mojoe
The law suit appears to me to be a BS attempt for states to cater toward wealthy constituents who want to profit from the destruction of potentially irreplaceable habitat.

The quote stating that current legislation implies that a desert could be protected due to the possibility of a stream being constructed is mind blowing and far fetched and shows no real understanding of the current laws.

I found myself disgusted earlier today with a non hunting non meat eating moron earlier today. He thought that because he doesn’t eat it shoot animals, he is allowing them to co-exist. I tried to explain to him that his mere existence necessitated construction that destroyed critical habitat for animals. Now that the habitat is gone, the animals will NEVER come back.

Just because he exists means they do not!

We cannot stop population growth, but we can try to protect the most critical of habitat. In my opinion, once it is gone, it is FOREVER GONE. If we make a mistake protecting something that wasn’t as critical as we thought, it may cost some wealthy landowners and developers short term gains. But once it is gone it is gone forever. The little bits of protection and legislation we currently have is the only hope my children and grandchildren have of being able to experience any remaining wilderness like I have known.

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:00 am
by Eric Kimmel
Endangered species law still needs to be worked on
The CSSP project has caused the destruction of hundred if not thousands of heads and hammocks it forces water mangers to continue to stack water destroying nearly all fur bearing animals in Frannie Taylor and 3a the abuse of E$SA law to allow the panther project to contine evn though science has proven all North American panthers are one and the same. The endnagered species law as it exists is a money maker for the lwyers and environmental organization that make multi millions off of it IN my experience ESA law and their actions have caused more damage than helped. It started out as a good law but has morphed into monster

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:28 am
by mojoe
I agree, there is plenty of work that could be done to make the current legislation more efficient.

The main reason I defend it, to use the Everglades as one example, is that without the current protection the Everglades receives, partly through the ESA, they wouldn’t open it back into an untouched airboaters dream. It would become the next Weston or Pembrooke Pines.

This is not SPORTSMAN suing for access to land that should remain in its natural state. This is the states suing for the lost revenue they would receive by clearing and building on the land.

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:21 pm
by Rick McC.
mojoe wrote:I agree, there is plenty of work that could be done to make the current legislation more efficient.

The main reason I defend it, to use the Everglades as one example, is that without the current protection the Everglades receives, partly through the ESA, they wouldn’t open it back into an untouched airboaters dream. It would become the next Weston or Pembrooke Pines.

This is not SPORTSMAN suing for access to land that should remain in its natural state. This is the states suing for the lost revenue they would receive by clearing and building on the land.


Now there is a lot of truth in that! :thumbleft:

Re: Why didnt Florida join this lawsuit

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:41 am
by Gary S
The little bits of protection and legislation we currently have is the only hope my children and grandchildren have of being able to experience any remaining wilderness like I have known.[/quote]

Where as I agree that land should be protected for future generations, all land does not have to be protected as a natural area. There are not enough airboats to kill all sea side sparrows. And the land that was set aside for traditional hunting is anything but traditional. You can only use designated trails so the only way you can get away from the road is to walk. If you happen to be older and you walk into the woods a do get lucky, how you going to get it back to the buggy? And I have never heard of the tradition anywhere that deer have to rest or should I call it vacation for a month after hunting season.The area is closed so animals won't be disturbed. In a area that you can't get off a designated trail.