Comment by n4r9
2 hours ago
> have been caught in the past inventing non-existent new sub-species
That's not what happened, and your own links fail to support your narrative. It was genuinely believed - before the passing of the act - that the recently-discovered snail darter was a distinct species. It is still disputed whether it's a distinct species, unique sub-species, distinct population segment, or none of the above. The first three of these would still afford it protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Unfortunately what people say they believe doesn't really matter. These decisions are so subjective that nobody can ever prove good or bad intent. And having nice intentions isn't worth much, what matters is outcomes.
The outcome here was the dam was blocked despite being nearly fully constructed, the decision was objected to by the developers who said it was nonsense, the dam builders were correct and the taxonomists were wrong. 100% bad outcome: everyone loses.
Unfortunately it's what you'd expect from a system that allows people who have no incentive to say yes overrule anything they don't like, because if later it's revealed they were wrong they can just say "whoopsie, well who is really to say what is true anyway, times change etc". There's no accountability.
> nobody can ever prove good or bad intent
You're certainly happy to throw about assumptions.
> The outcome here was the dam was blocked
It was slowed but not "blocked". The dam exists!
> the taxonomists were wrong
Still in dispute.
> There's no accountability.
Academic reputation is a surprisingly strong form of accountability, and even more so in the 1970's.