pearl cut-and-pasted:
<...>
>>>>Streamlining is not the same as overturning laws or regulations, nor is it to
>>>>set them aside. It is a matter of process. NOTE YOU INSIPID FOOL: *POTENTIAL*
>>>>RESTRICTIONS, NOT CURRENT ONES.
>>>
>>>'The proposed joint regulation will minimize the potential restriction
>>>of pesticides (with expert fish and wildlife scientists involved) by
>>>streamlining and clarifying the review process. ' Got it now, suspect?
>>
>>YOU don't get it, Chelsea. It doesn't and won't change existing laws or
>>regulations. The Endangered Species Act will remain intact. It's just a
>>reasonable measure that will streamline an overly bureaucratic process.
>
> 'Under the rule changes proposed by Bush Administration
> officials at NMFS and USFWS on January 30, 2004, the
> EPA would be given unilateral power to determine the
> risks of many pesticides to endangered species, shutting
> expert fish and wildlife scientists out of the process.'

EPA has "expert fish and wildlife scientists" on the payroll, dummy. The cause
of alarm is among ACTIVISTS, not scientists. Your ACTIVIST "news" source bears
that out -- it is an activist site, not a science site.

> http://ga0.org/campaign/pesticide_pr...w5ssxs4vjx7i36

Why doesn't that leftist website allow access to their pages? I was redirected
to a sign-up page. It calls the site "The Leader in Online Campaigns."

> '.. courts have ruled EPA's current pesticide review process
> does not legally comply with the ESA (Endangered Species Act).
> In the Pacific Northwest and California, the federal court has
> already severely limited the use of 38 pesticides. ...'
> http://www.msfb.com/news/frontpagest...deESAregs.html

Great that you use a source that actually endorses the proposed change. From
your second source:
The proposed regulations helps to solve the problem because it….

Ø Creates a “joint” rule that will be used by the services when
conducting consultations with other government agencies for the federal
actions that require compliance with ESA. (In this case, the review and
registration of a pesticide is the “action” and EPA is the “other
agency.”)

Ø Clarifies how FIFRA pesticide reviews will be completed in compliance
with ESA and results in less litigation and more certainty for pesticide
users.

Ø Allows EPA to make the initial determination on a pesticide’s affect
on protected species based on the Agency’s expertise and extensive
ecological review.

Ø Establishes that, so long as protocols are followed, the Services do
not need further review in this form of interagency consultation – i.e.
EPA determines that a pesticide is “likely to affect a species.”

Explain how any of those will endanger anything except activists seeking
leverage through delay tactics.

> You get it,

Yes, and you clearly don't. This is another ploy used by activists -- NOT
scientists -- to scare gullible people in a shameless exercise of promoting
their extreme (and anti-capitalist) agenda.

<...>