Right, so you agree with me then that calling out ambiguous usage and citing the relevant definitions is valuable? People are getting outrageously bent out of shape in this thread when all I'm trying to say is that the Endangered Species Act is a valuable and important tool and that attempts to "define it away" with ambiguous rhetoric is bad.
The fact that I keep trying to pin you guys down on policy implications with no success tells me an awful lot about who I'm arguing with. (Again: do you or don't you want to return to the use of DDT? Do you or don't you agree that the bald eagle should have been listed as endangered until 1995? Do you or don't you agree that "Endangered" as a legal classification has been a good law? No one answers!)
The fact that I keep trying to pin you guys down on policy implications with no success tells me an awful lot about who I'm arguing with. (Again: do you or don't you want to return to the use of DDT? Do you or don't you agree that the bald eagle should have been listed as endangered until 1995? Do you or don't you agree that "Endangered" as a legal classification has been a good law? No one answers!)