From CNN.com: "The Bush administration Tuesday proposed large cuts in federally designated areas in the Northwest and California meant to aid the recovery of threatened or endangered salmon."
The "meant to aid the recovery" part is the kicker because... "Both proposals were strongly opposed by environmentalists, Indian tribes and a commercial fishing group, which said the Bush administration was abandoning any hopes of restoring salmon beyond bare survival."
Odd that the commercial fishing groups who would probably know a little more about the salmon population that GWB would go against this. Or perhaps Bush is simply bending to the will of another big corporation at the expense of our countries wildlife and wetlands.
Same article: "Large areas could be cut where state and federal habitat protections are already in place, such as national forests and places where the economic benefits of development outweigh the biological benefits of habitat.
After a lawsuit brought by the National Association of Home Builders, the federal agency agreed to reconsider critical habitat designations for 13 groups of threatened or endangered salmon in the Northwest, and seven in California.
The home builders association has been chafing under the costs of getting federal permits for development in wetlands."
So wait.. Let me get this right... Because the Home Builders sue over the costs to get permits to destroy wetlands Bush bends over, does a flip and agrees to destroy uncountable acres of land. Even our friends on the right can appreciate a good cooked salmon. Right? Or would you prefer we go ahead and wipe out this species of fish so we can have some water front property?
Remember, huddled masses, environment bad.. A house with a view good. And maybe then we can get rid of those cry baby dolphins.. Who needs them!? Or perhaps we should start strip mining in the Grand Canyon for gold. Who needs an environmental policy?