Nope nope nope. Get rid of the whole agency, the forests will be fine, everything in existence today will die out at some point including us. You aren't saving a damn thing but federal benefits and a cushy salary for minimal work. Local Law > State Law > Fed (the way it's supposed to be) and then maybe we can use that extra $$$ to invest in our municipal water filteration so we can all stop getting cancer or maybe we can lobby against putting chemicals in our water that give your grandkids terminal diseases. No... that's silly, we need to save the majestic whatsitsname-frog!!
Since I'm being quoted, I will respond.
What you all don't realize, apparently, is every time an issue has been brought up in this thread, it's a failure/mismanagement on a local level, forcing the hand of the ESA. (I should also point out that the case of the whitetailed deer cited above was DELISTED by the USF&W Service in July of 2003.) Most local and State governments don't have the funds, manpower, or access to unbiased biological opinion that a well-funded centralized agency does. If left to a local level, many species would go extinct before anything would be done.
There is a lot of criticism, I know, about the protections afforded sub-species. I get it, and there are cases when the listing is not warranted. But what also must be pointed out is the effort that went into the legal language of the act such that in these types of cases, species in-need wouldn't fall through the cracks. You can see the legal discussion of sub-species under the ESA here:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/policy-distinct-vertebrate.html
One thing that is not usually discussed, is the unique difference between the lands found in the West, versus the lands in the rest of the U.S. The higher rainfall, and greater latitude for recovery of the lands of the East and South, for example, means that endangered species are somewhat (but not always) easier to manage. Much of the lands of the West, unfortunately, where problems occur, are also lands that are gold-bearing. Geologically-speaking, this means that there is an inherent risk involved in any land use activity. The conditions are much more stark, and small changes can have huge impacts upon wildlife. The ESA can't be blamed for this...it is simply a fact of life.
I live on the Gulf Coast of Florida. After the BP oil spill, millions upon millions of dollars were allocated to counties along the coast here as "recovery money" for losses that were supposedly incurred as a result. There were perhaps half a dozen globs of oil that found their way to local beaches, so, no significant or permanent damage. You'd laugh at the ridiculous ways that money was spent, that had nothing to do with recovery. You think local governments can be trusted to spend Federal dollars on their own? It won't happen. There is simply too much self-interest at stake, and opportunity for corruption and back-room deals.
As further evidence of the failure of local governments, read about the Hardesty gravel mine case involving the County of Sacramento, and how a competing mine forced corruption from county officials.
Even on a State level, things can happen in back rooms that aren't necessarily illegal, but do not serve the general public. The best example of this is the ridiculous Inyo County Water Bank, where a few wealthy landowners cornered millions upon millions of gallons of water and kept it from the citizens of California, further escalating drought conditions for the State. All this to line the pockets of a few wealthy, industrialized farms growing pistachios, pomegranates, and almonds -- crops that shouldn't be grown in a desert. As a further outrage, none of the wealth of this farming finds its way into local infrastructure, or pay for workers. It is siphoned from the California economy, and gets shifted into offshore bank accounts.
As miners, we pay the price for these local failures. We get blamed for the decline of salmon, when that is the result of other factors we have nothing to do with. We pay for the loss of land we can mine on, because industrialized farming and the introduction of exotic fish species has caused the decline of the red-legged frog. We get angry at the ESA, because that represents the giant hammer that actually is forced to come in and do something, yet are not angry at all the steps and failures that led up to the requirements of enforcement. We are put on the offensive, fighting the restrictions and public opinion, when the opposition has gamed the system and lined their pockets with grant moneys to fund studies that are slanted to add more weight to flawed arguments. A, B, C, and D never get exposed, because we're answering Z in the courts.
This is what my point is. Don't blame the Feds, or the ESA, for what they are mandated to do. These mandates were part of a public process, representing what the majority of Americans want for their country. Focus your efforts, and anger, against the special interests which are trying to game the system, and cause pollution, loss of habitat, etc., that impacts local flora and fauna. These things are going on right now, long before any protective actions are on the horizon. We are outdoorsmen, too, and don't want to spend our days mining for gold in a polluted moonscape, devoid of life. If you display an understanding of all this with your efforts to organize opposition, people will recognize this, and take us much more seriously.
? I'm just a poor dredger feeling my demise. HA!
in California .
I was underwater most of the time, being young... strong....Fish would swarm me ! I was stirring up food.....Habitat was better the following year. 
