Environmentalists of the USA Express Moving Concerns For Wildlife Threatened by Congress

Many thought with the Bush regime coming to anthis strange necessity to completely change the
end, he could do no more harm to damage theEndanger Species act which hasn't seen a single
United States or the world. We thought that withedit since 1986?
him at the Olympic Games kicking back andGlobal Warming seems to be the resounding
taking time off, the people pulling his strings wouldreason for this new policy. The topic is still
too. Yet as we all know, nothing ever goes asconsidered taboo within the Bush administration
planned, and with the ever looming demise of thefor reasons of interested (oil) and the policy, if
Republican controlled government they seem toinstated, would mean that it would be illegal to
have taken to the strategy of doing as muchever relate global warming to a harmful effect on
damage as possible in the shortest amount ofa habitat. As it stands, the Endangered Species
time. Playground tactics, but most effective. ThisAct requires government agencies to consult
time it's not anti-war protesters that are angry;scientists to see if what they're building will have a
it's the environmentalists of the USA that haveharmful impact on the environment and whether
declared Bush's latest action an outcry. Bush andor not what their building could cause the moving
his administration have decided that they wantof an entire animal population. It's easy to see
agencies to make up their minds about witherwhy environmental activists of the USA, express
human expansion such as bridges, tunnels,moving concerns so quickly for endangered animal
buildings, and dams have a negative and/orspecies. This new policy, or lack thereof, is
harmful impact on the animal population. But whatanother attempt at extending the Bush regime
does this mean and what are the reasons behindjust a little bit further.