Our public discourse is shaped to coerce political opponents of the left into supporting leftist's causes (anything gay) or destroying any source of opposition financial support (Tea Party, GOP donor list leaks). Environmentalists were a useful hammer against political donors who favored the right, especially in formerly purple states like Oregon and Maine. Would we ever reverse a policy or ruling that was found to be false or not useful? No. Looking for proof, read this blurb on federal biologists have been shooting barred owls to help spotted owls.
The spotted owl was the key to the environmentalist argument to stop Western logging. The proof that the environmentalists' claim that ending logging would save the spotted owl is hogwash is buried deep in the article.
Major cutbacks in logging in old growth forest that spotted owls prefer as habitat have not turned around their population decline, and scientists want to see if removing competition from the more aggressive barred owl will make a difference.
Stopping logging did not lead to a growth in spotted owl numbers. Stopping logging did not save the 2,000 spotted owls. Now the federal authorities have switched from strangling an entire industry in the Pacific Northwest to interfering with evolution and killing another owl. Who decides what owl is worth more? I do not know, maybe there is an official in the USG who decrees that we must save the spotted owl above all else. Academia felt that there was an ethical reason for protecting the owls as they had a right to life. The interesting thing is the interference with evolution, the competition between owl species, where humans within the USG are saying one deserves protection over the other. The article states this is not unusual as cormorants and sea lions are killed to help salmon.
If spotted owls did not explode in numbers once logging left their habitats alone, why are we bothering to protect them? The policy failed. The owls do not thrive, and they are not as strong as barred owls. Why are we shooting barred owls? Why not let logging resume? Why not employ more citizens in a job that would not require college degrees? Reversing that policy would be admitting they were wrong. It would cast the entire farce as the propaganda play that it was. It might make people question more environmental arguments from those same fools telling them now that CO2 is Satan's breath. We cannot have that in the realm of public knowledge and discourse. We cannot even correct dumb policies. It is not about good governance and positive policies; it's about winning more power.