The Bush administration is going to scale back rules protecting wetlands. Is this a horrible idea?

Question

This action follows heavy lobbying by mine owners, property developers and mass agricultural groups like ADM. It also goes against a prior Supreme Court ruling.

Should these new rules regarding wetland protection be tossed out or eliminated? Are wetlands still vitally important?

Answer 1

yes it's stupid and will cause great damage just like almost everything Bush ever did! we need to keep the rules and even improve them to protect all existing wetlands!

wetlands are so important in cleaning the water supply, protecting the environment and animals, and it also can help stop flooding. it'd be horrible to stop protecting them but it's what we expect from that criminal maniac Bush!

Answer 2

I don't think any sane person can argue the importance of wetlands. I do not think the protection rules should be scaled back but I would like to see some changes that make them more effective. I have heard too many stories about abuse in purchasing wetland credits and the substandard "created" wetlands that result.

Answer 3

Wetlands are vitally important, and should be left in tact to maintain the fragile growth of flora and fauna, and bird life.

If there is draining of any kind, it endangers the the fine balance of flora and the species who use this kind of habitat .
There will be an alteration in the behavioural pattern of the wildlife.
If the Bush administration is allowed to withdraw this protection these areas will become extremely vulnerable. They need to be shown this is not negotiable. There must be a100% protection for these areas full stop!

In England the need for housing is ever encroaching on Wetlands, and developers can't wait to get their greedy hands on it. Then when they do build, we see terrible flooding of properties as we have done this year.

Don't budge an inch on this matter, fight with all the amunition you have. Wetlands are important and should stay as protected areas for all time.

Answer 4

Wetlands are critically important.

I recommend you fight your ghastly administration's anti-wetland proposals .

Better still, verify your enrollment to vote and then - actually vote in every ballot

Even better still - find and assist a local Federal candidate who has policy that upholds wetland protection and the parallel necessity - phasing outs of fossil fuel burning - current climate change that is accelerated by coal/oil burning will dry out many wetlands across the world unless we all stop burning the filthy stuff !

Answer 5

o.k. andy. you know as well as i do that the wetlands are such a crucial ecosphere that with out them we are, in a word, screwed. it may not be my favorite enviromental setting, but i do know enough to know that losing, or even just damaging, ANY ecosphere is is more than our enviroment as a whole is developed to handle.

adaptation is a normal part of nature. however, one of the head researchers of the caretta research project made a valid point one night while my team and i were sitting on the beach waiting for a turtle to come lay her nest. he said that humans are part of a very, very small group of animals, including locusts, that force the enviroment around them to change rather than the other way around. and honestly, as sad as it is to say it, i don't think it will matter what we do until people learn to adapt instead of destroying what they have to build something that is less efficient. i'm not syaing we shouldn't fight to keep what we still have protected, i'm just saying we have to fight much harder,since we as enviromentalists don't control the market, thereby we don't control the voting population

as far as bush and his administartion go, he is still the president for the time being, so i respect the place of authority; however, that does not make him a good leader. he has several bad decisons on his record already and lets face it, repulicans are not known for their extensive knowledge of the enviroment or their burning desire to protect it. (something a friend of mine from wassaw and i are trying to change one republican at a time)

thanks for the heads up on the changing laws. what is sad is that i have not heard a thing about it. i guess now i've got some summer reading to catch up on before i go back to class. it would be interseting to see what my old poli.sci. professor will have to say. ;)

Answer 6

Well that depends....If you consider the purposes that wetlands serve in the environment as important, than yes it is a horrible idea.
Wetlands provide many different and significant contributions to the environment, including:

-erosion control
-flood buffering
-wildlife habitat
-water filtration and toxin remediation

disruption of their contributions to the environment, can be extremely destructive immediately to surrounding ecosystems, and cause damage to other ecosystems that aren't close by in the longterm.

Answer 7

I depended on Bush some 7 collectively as he became in place of work. In hindsight i will have depended on him a 9. whilst Obama began, became watching for roughly 4. In hindsight that would desire to have been approximately 2.

Answer 8

Wetlands are priceless and should be given total protection-park status. Once gone they can never be reclaimed.

Answer 9

Fill in the swamps, and shoot the gators, the only good thing in a swamp is a dozer and dump truck filling it in. Do you really like mosquitoes, gnats, and snakes? what else you going to do with a swamp?

Answer 10

As a resident of South Florida, in my opinion it will be catastrophic to the Florida Everglades.