This is a fascinating article and I hope everyone reads beyond the headline if they click through to it. Money is indeed at the heart of it, but the groups suing aren't making any money except to get the costs for bringing the lawsuit reimbursed - /the money here is what the industry claims is the cost of complying with the regulation that the lawsuits compel./ The lawsuits are forcing the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies to enact regulations and industry is saying these regulations (decreasing particulate mercury in the first example) cost a lot.
The headline reflects the source: the Center for Policy Analysis openly admits its goal is to eliminate government regulations - see its homepage - believing they interfere with a free market. The free market was seriously interfered with when DDT was banned, so it's particularly apt to raise eagles in this context! Money certainly is at the heart of this: the money that industry resents having to spend to clean up its act, and the lack of money in the regulatory agencies. The EPA, for example, had its budget slashed by the Bush Administration and then, before those cuts were made up, faced additional cuts due to budget sequestration - no one talks about sequestration anymore but those annual cuts continue for most parts of the government! Many federal agencies have been finding it increasingly difficult to meet deadlines imposed by statute because they are underfunded. That's the heart of this issue: if the agencies had the resources to do their jobs, there would be no basis for these lawsuits and there would be no resulting 'rushed' regulations./'Sue & settle' certainly is not the best way to get regulations promulgated, but until these agencies are properly funded, it may be the only way - which the Center for Policy Analysis well understands and as a think tank founded to eliminate regulation, that is why it is so riled up!/ I realize that this post is not centered on birds, but birders should be aware that the EPA is so underfunded that it cannot possibly do its job, and that _does_ impact birds. Sequestration did not help US Fish & Wildlife, either, which manages Montezuma: at least initially USFW had to absorb $127 million in annual cuts due to the sequester - including substantial cuts to visitor services and more modest ones to new construction. (Don't know the current impact, there's a limit to how long I am willing to search through the annual Greenbooks & budget announcements!) Best - Alicia On 8/15/2014 7:30 AM, John and Sue Gregoire wrote: > http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/bg174.pdf > > This is fascinating. It now explains to me why the ABC is suing the U.S. > gov't > over bald eagle deaths. Like everything about this subject, it's about the > money. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- Cayugabirds-L List Info: http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsWELCOME http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsRULES http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm ARCHIVES: 1) http://www.mail-archive.com/cayugabirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html 2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/Cayugabirds 3) http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/CAYU.html Please submit your observations to eBird: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ --
