Joel

New and improved! Bacon, beans, whiskey, and biscuits. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. You're muted because you're an idiot.

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

Good friend of mine tells me I need to be careful, that calling a blue check a worthless piece of shit can get you suspended. Apparently twitter doesn't really care for facts. I'll try to keep that in mind

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@KennedyNation I'm sorry that facts bother you

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@CyborgPeds

[☁️ Sayu 🐻‍❄️ @sayuupi_]

Sketching some bears from the bear cam! 🐻🐟

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@BillHuntBits @MorlockP No it's not

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@WhigJust @Decentguyusedto @Gormogons

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

Talk me out of it
https://t.co/PxNKhtGhbd

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

https://t.co/eLsaYDXOr0

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@TheGreenOldDill Not purchase

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@RuffneckAviator I got some on the 4th, they definitely hadn't let them cool

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@thymallusa What does it say?

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@lovemylife81

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

https://t.co/nlo606WLID

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@aelfred_D https://t.co/Iubntk1Al4

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

@wbridgefa And here I thought beans were bad

[Charles C. W. Cooke @charlescwcooke]

This is a thread about Andrew Ross Sorkin, who apparently believes that you are stupid. In today's DealBook, Sorkin laments that the House has passed a bill that would prevent credit companies from tracking firearms purchases. Here's the segment. (1)

[Joel @GhostFrankEaton]

Fluffy cows you can pet

[Wholesome Side of 𝕏 @itsme_urstruly]

A Scottish Highland cow born just two hours ago
🤍 🩶

[RodeoProfessor @RodeoProfessor]

The media have been riling up low info voters on wildlife for 50 years and there’s no pushback. I’d like to see a rw vision for conservation where we rationally discuss tradeoffs (who wins, who loses, who needs to pay up) and scientific evidence. I'm going to use this example in my classes this fall, maybe you find interesting.

The Trump admin just finalized a rule change in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) where "harm" to endangered and threatened species now means habitat impacts that *kill* or *injure* species. Before this, "harm" meant habitat impacts that *might kill or injure* species. Many news sources are feeding people information that all habitat protections for wildlife are now gone, which isn’t close to being true but it one shots low info people who feel strongly about wildlife.

Here are all the habitat protections that remain in our laws, using Montana as an example. Starting with federal protections, (these federal rules apply to private projects needing federal permits like mining, logging, energy or projects affecting listed species or migratory birds).

1) one of the toothiest parts of the ESA remains, what’s called a "Section 7 Consult". Fed agencies have to consult with Fish and Wildlife or NOAA to make sure their actions don’t harm designated critical habitat. This is independent of the “harm” definition that was just modified (no change). If you think Fish and Wildlife people rubber stamp industry in a Section 7 Consult, you're nuts.

2) critical habitat itself- this is another iron clad part of the ESA- areas that are critical habitat still receive protections against “adverse modification”

3) section 9 of the ESA - "take" is still very much illegal! You cannot harm, harass, wound, kill protected species and if you will you need incidental take permits under section 10. Even Elon Musk has trouble securing these.

4) you still have many other federal laws protecting habitat on top of just the ESA:
-NEPA (requires environmental assessments and mitigation of habitat for any big federal action),
-the Clean Water Act (section 404 requires you to mitigate any lost wetlands habitats many times over),
-Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits any habitat impacts that destroy nests of native migratory birds/results in take
-all federal land management laws (Fed Land Policy and Management Act for BLM and National Forest Management Act for National Forests require habitat studies for destruction under multiple use.

Purely private actions on private land are subject to state wildlife laws and local zoning stuff, but your big mining or logging projects typically trigger NEPAs and CWA Reviews plus ESA stuff if there’s protected species.

Onto the state stuff using Montana as an example:

1) Montana Environmental Policy Act - if you want a permit you’ll need to do a study on the impacts to wildlife habitat.

2) Montana Board of Oil and Gas - if you want a drilling permit, you’ll need to show proof of MEPA habitat assessment plus waste prevention and surface protection, similar requirements for mining for mitigation for hard rock mining

3) various habitat programs for non-endangered species like the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation program which maps all habitat and applies regulatory oversight during permitting for drilling or mining during MEPA/NEPA/federal land management plans.

Now take a game species, like elk. To deal with their habitat protections we have federal land management plans (like BLM Resource Management Plan or Forest Service Plans) identifying winter range, migration corridors, and so on as per their multiple use mandates. Any action on federal land has to consider impacts to big game habitat. NEPAs will also consider winter range and migration leading to things like seasonal restrictions on logging or mining, fencing adjustment, or habitat projects.

So if you want to criticize the admin about habitat, do so knowing that we have tons of strict habitat protections remaining.