STIRLING and GIESELER: Environmentalists' hysteria loses

Having worked in a government environmental agency for over 30 years I saw much folly and ignorance. I found the worst and most abused power to be the ability to enforce regulation that "potentially" could develop into a harm without even having to show any probability. The penalties and burdens put on the regulated community were dealt out as though actual harm had been committed. Most enforcement bureaucrats couldn't even tell you what the Constitution was about let alone follow it or have a concern that it should be followed. Staff attorneys' only interest in new law and regulations were to ensure that agency actions would be supported, not ever in that they were Constitutional to begin with. Disgusting

The good, old 9th Circuit Court. With friends like those, who needs enemies? Thank God for a Supreme Court that is balanced enough to rule in favor of national defense and preparedness and to hand the enviornmetal illuminati loons a deserved defeat.

If the Republicans want to obtain some additional votes in the future, they need to get serious about cleaning up the LIES from the gloom and doom lefties about so-called man made global warming, endangered species and other UTTER NONSENSE that have been made into BAD LAWS which, if not expunged, will soon about cost this country its very existence. Where, pray tell, does it say in the Constitution that making a citizen "feel good about himself" is the primary mission of the government of the USA, and that it will take precedence over ALL ELSE???????

Bush's greatest legacy may be that he appointed Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. This is one example where those decisions played a very major role in keeping the nation safe. It is disconcerting realizing just how close a group of lower level, out of touch, ivory tower, activist judges nearly came to rendering America defenseless using the flimsiest of rationales.

This decision is great, but what will happen once Obama is in office, will he continue the practice of using the sonar or will he order its use stopped? Given the way he panders to the left I think the latter will happen.

Well done, Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court liberal illuminati masquerading as judicial keepers of the lamp are almost always guaranteed to come down on the wrong side of what's right.

I find the nature of this article and your comments to be biased interpretations that are both uneducated and uninformed on the ESA and the nature of threatened and endangered species. While there have been misapplications of the act, there are more positive aspects to it overall. Instead of sitting here complaining about it or firing insults at those who are trying to work with it, why don't you people find constructive methods of improving it or its application? This latest trick by the Bush administration not only subverts the ESA, it also throws out all environmental laws that protect both human and natural environments. Furthermore, this tactic undermines our public right to inform and comment on the actions of the government. This is something that I have no tolerance for; the government is our servant – we are not a servant to it! Back to the environmental side of this issue, keep in mind we have the flexibility and ingenuity to build or develop or conduct our actions almost anywhere. If we actually use our brains, to alter plans to accommodate those rare and vulnerable species or habitats, then everyone wins. When a species or unique population is lost... it is gone forever. Where we develop habitats used by those species, those habitats are lost for the conceivable future and we create a trend that further jeopardizes those same species or populations. We’ve seen what a mess unfettered greed has done to the world’s economy. There is a justifiable need to establish confines in which business should operate, particularly where a specific sector has a keystone effect to influence the health and function of such large parts of our society, the global economy, or the natural world. History has shown that where resources are open and essentially free and subject to exploitation, then the business world does nothing to protect those resources. Look at Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. The ESA provides one such mechanism to protect some resources that would otherwise receive no protection and would disappear forever.

Environmental regulation should be about doing what is reasonable to not do unnecessary damage. It should not be about not doing anything period. The environmental groups treat it like a religion and do NOT flex. They want preservation, not conservation. When a species is so endangered that it can die out, it has lost it's natural niche and purpose. This has been going on since the beginning and will go on to the end. Also, are we really being honest about species? It seems in a lot of cases the species is being defined by location, such as the Wisconsin wolf verses the Dakota wolf as an example. If both can interbreed successfully what is the problem of the SPECIES if one vanishes? It is the use of sub species as equal to species that is the abuse of the intent of the ESA. When does a species not need to be covered by the ESA once on it? Are some trying to live the Garden of Eden?