Fish "of No Value" Still Protected

[mic]

Found this read...some farmers tried to argue that a fish of no value was outside of Congresses authority to protect it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/endangered-species-act-survives-challenge-at-u-s-high-court.html

[ozark trout fisher]

Found this read...some farmers tried to argue that a fish of no value was outside of Congresses authority to protect it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/endangered-species-act-survives-challenge-at-u-s-high-court.html

Thanks for posting.

I must say I'm very happy with this decision. Who are we to say that any species is of no value? How presumptuous is it to assume that we fully understand the implications of any species going extinct? Of course we don't. In the end we only have a very limited knowledge.

Anyone who says that a species is of no value because it is not commercially useful does not even have the most basic understanding of ecology. If one "useless" species is lost, besides the inherent loss in diversity, who's to say that couldn't adversely affect another species that is commercially useful? Not that this is my concern but if money is all that counts, then it's something to consider. As I said before, we don't have anything approaching a full knowledge of how one species relates to another, and until we do it seems that we cannot drive even the most obscure species extinct without fear of unexpected consequences.

[junkman]

I'm glad someone saw where the argument was going. When we decide to throw away something for it is not as we want it, it just makes it easier to throw away the next and the next.

[Tim Smith]

The Endangered Species Act is a fairly imperfect instrument to keep our natural resources intact, but frankly it's one of the few effective tools we have.

Strangling those rivers to water crops elminates any chance of keeping salmon and other fisheries that cross the Central Valley. Delta smelt are a canary in that coal mine...as are many other endangered species elsewhere.

I'm a little surprised this Supreme Court upheld this decision, but it was the right one.

[kevthebassman]

"Of no value" to who? I'm sure it's of no value to people who want to destroy it's habitat, but that doesn't give them the right to exterminate an entire species.

[mic]

"Of no value" to who? I'm sure it's of no value to people who want to destroy it's habitat, but that doesn't give them the right to exterminate an entire species.

The argument was that they were of no commercial value and therefore fell outside the commerce clause...therefore outside of Congress's authority.