Lawsuit challenges Trump's erosion of Endangered Species Act

Somebody has to say, "Enough is enough.":

Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, WildEarth Guardians and the Humane Society of the United States.

For more than 40 years, the Endangered Species Act has been a successful conservation law that protects imperiled species and their habitats. In the years since it was enacted, 99 percent of listed species including the bald eagle, Florida manatee and the gray wolf have been spared from extinction, according to the release.

I'm actually surprised it took him this long to target endangered species. In the mind of Trump, animals that need protection are "weak," and probably should be allowed to go extinct. I'm sure there are a lot of humans that fit into that category as well, at least in the mind of the Narcissist-In-Chief. Here are some of the main complaints detailed in the suit:

The following claims, the first of what is expected to be a larger legal challenge, are listed in the lawsuit against the new rules:

1. The Trump administration failed to publicly disclose and analyze the harms and impacts of these rules, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

2. The administration inserted new changes into the final rules that were never made public and not subject to public comment, cutting the American people out of the decision-making process.

3. The administration violated the language and purpose of the Endangered Species Act by unreasonably changing requirements for compliance with Section 7, which requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize the existence of any species listed, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat of any listed species.

For those who have followed issue-based politics for even a short period of time, you'll be aware of the plethora of industry-funded "think-tanks" that pursue pseudo-science in an effort to sway the minds of intellectually challenged politicians (like Trump). This issue is no different. Although you may not have heard of PERC (Property and Environment Research Center), their propagandists are well-published in the right-wing media:

In July, an eight-year legal saga involving the dusky gopher frog came to a close when the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to remove the property of Edward Poitevent, a Louisiana landowner, from its “critical habitat designation” for the species. The designation delineates areas that are important for the recovery of a species, but often comes with burdensome land-use restrictions.

In 2011, the government included about 1,500 acres of Poitevent’s property because the land encompasses several rare ponds conducive to the frog’s breeding needs. Yet the government admitted “the surrounding uplands are poor-quality terrestrial habitat for dusky gopher frogs” because they lack the particular timber ecosystem the amphibian requires. Moreover, the frog has not been documented in the state for half a century—the surviving population, which numbers about 150, is in southern Mississippi.

It’s no surprise that Poitevent and his family weren’t interested in trying to help recover the frog...

I'ma stop it right there, because that last sentence forms the crux of their argument, which is steeped in "invisible hand" nonsense. To wit: If you back off on regulations, landowners will naturally volunteer to help endangered species on their properties. And if you don't, those same landowners will intentionally destroy potential habitats, to "protect themselves" from government regulation. So the Endangered Species Act itself is actually endangering species, if you can wrap your mind around that twisted logic.

PERC has received funding from the Koch Brothers and Exxon/Mobil, which comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone.