Construction vs. Conservation

@Valenas (1509)
United States
June 25, 2008 5:10pm CST
Should construction plans be canceled if it would effect the habitat of an animal on the endangered species list? If it were at all possible for the local animals of that species to be relocated safely during a construction period, would you? What would you do if faced with this situation? I may give my opinion later in a comment, but for now, I want to hear what you all have to say.
3 responses
@CEVCEV (544)
25 Jun 08
We have generations of frogs which spawn in our small garden pond. I believe some frogs are classed as endangered species in britain, and we live in what is called a regeneration area, so the local council want to demolish all of the houses in the area. I personally would like to challenge them on an environmental issue of this (possible) endangered species. ...I do need to do the reserch to back me up though...
1 person likes this
@Valenas (1509)
• United States
25 Jun 08
Perhaps get together with a friend and search together for valid information about the species and whether or not it is endangered. I do not understand what you mean by "regeneration" area. Why do they want to demolish the houses?
@CEVCEV (544)
26 Jun 08
The whole area is supposed to be going to be made better ??? The houses are said to have been built by a builder who apparently used some faulty wall ties. It is my opinion that they are using this as an excuse to knock these good sized houses (with front and back gardens) down and rebuild more smaller houses with a minimum parking space (this I have already seen evidence of as work has begun). They then will cram as many people as possible into the same area.
1 person likes this
@Valenas (1509)
• United States
26 Jun 08
Ah, I see what they are doing now. It seems that they are attempting to create a larger neighborhood. I can understand their motives, but also that they need to fill up the spaces that they already have before they build new houses. I doubt that people are struggling to find places to live there. And, if they have, I have not heard anything about it. It is all about the money, that is what most people are concerned with.
@irishidid (8716)
• United States
25 Jun 08
I'd say it would depend on the endangered animal and whether it really was endangered. Like the polar bear that isn't really endangered but the government claims it is so it gives them an excuse not to drill for oil. The governor of Alaska is suing the US government over this btw.
1 person likes this
@Valenas (1509)
• United States
25 Jun 08
I did not hear that they really were not endangered. Could it be that they are close to being endangered, and the government is looking out for the species before it becomes that way? Even so, could they not relocate the polar bears and other wildlife away from the drill site? I can understand where you are coming from, but I would not want to put a species at risk of being endangered, so if they could find a way to safely do this, would it make sense for the government to okay it?
@irishidid (8716)
• United States
25 Jun 08
The number of polar bears has increased. They are going by the "global warming myth" to claim they are endangered. The fact is that oil drilling is safe for the environment. Oil naturally seeps continually from the bottom of the ocean.
1 person likes this
@Valenas (1509)
• United States
25 Jun 08
I disagree with you about Global Warming being a myth, but I do believe that most people try to treat it like it is something new, when it has been around since the world has been in existence. I can understand the need for oil. And, it is good that the polar bears have made such a great comeback. Perhaps if the company could prove that animals would not be harmed for oil, then maybe it will give the government something to consider.
• United States
4 Jul 08
I never really answered this directly: Yes, construction plans should always be cancelled or delayed until a reasonable approach to conservation is decided. There. =)
1 person likes this