Endangered Endangered Species Act - Part I

Two articles on the Endangered Species Act have recently been published in the mainstream media. On the 26th the NYT had "The Endangered Species Act Faces Broad New Challenges," and in the CS Monitor yesterday I read "Endangered Species Act Under Fire from Two Directions." Both articles discuss the intense efforts being made by this White House, Congress, even the Interior Department, under the influence of their friends in industry as well as large landowners, to remove federal controls that currently limit construction, logging, mining, fishing and other activities in areas that are deemed critical habitat or corridors. What this amounts to is a systematic undermining of the species protection intended when the Act was passed in 1973. This tunneling under of the Act has been going on for more than four years now.

The ESA was passed during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, a time when Republicans actually cared about the environment. In fact, much of our important environmental legislation was passed under Republican administrations. The Act was passed to address a problem that was only beginning to be recognized at that time - the extinction crisis that was looming on the horizon. That future generations might not know the biological diversity of species that were already diminishing thirty-two years ago: the peregrine falcon, grizzly bear, manatees, wolves, alligators, condors, the bald eagle, was a concern to those legislators of the past. Because the planet is an ecological system, everything we do has an effect on everything else. It is our human activities that create the conditions that threaten extinction. All legislation is ultimately environmental, when you come right down to it. To say that the ESA has not done its job is to entirely misunderstand the Act's purpose and mission, which is to conserve species whose existence is threatened, and, as possible, help them to recovery. The best way to do this, recognized thirty years ago in the language of the ESA, is to preserve their habitat.

Here is what is currently happening. Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA), the chair of the House Resources Committee, is preparing legislation that is likely to curb how much land or water can be defined as critical habitat. In addition, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) has a bill which would dramatically weaken habitat protections for endangered species. Several Arizona representatives, led by Jeff Flake (R-AZ), have proposed a sweeping exemption from the Act to prohibit habitat protections along rivers, streams and lakes affected by dams or waterways. As an example of Interior's part in the battle against the ESA, we have the story of the top aide in the Fish and Wildlife Service editing the scientific assessment of the sage grouse, a bird whose habitat includes areas likely to have oil and gas deposits, so that the accounts of the bird's range and population declines were downplayed and the grouse was ultimately not listed as endangered. (So, you see, rewriting scientific assessments and reports seems to be SOP in more than one government department.)

There are arguments coming at the Act from several directions - but the real barrage is from groups like The National Endangered Speciies Act Reform Coalition, or NESARC. This, like most such underhanded endeavors, is a misleading name. Check out these folks' website. Or, just look at this list labeled "Some of NESARC's Supporters"

American Farm Bureau Federation
American Forest & Paper Association
American Public Power Association
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association
Edison Electric Institute
Mid-West Electric Consumers Association
National Association of Counties
National Association of Home Builders
The National Grange
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
National Water Resources Association
Northwest Horticultural Council
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association

Some of these groups might sound innocuous, how could the Northwest Horticultural Council be an enemy of endangered species, we might wonder. But look at some of these that I have highlighted in bold. The idea here is to take the habitat away from the animals, birds, plants, insects, and give it to the developers, ranchers, loggers, industrialists, and utility companies. Remember also, that some very environment-unfriendly federal judges have just been appointed and will now have jurisdiction over environmental issues in litigation.

This administration, in its military madness, and with the agreement of Congress, passed one of the most astounding blows to environmental law. Our current friend Rep. Richard Pombo was also behind much of that legislation: the exempting of the DOD from ESA requirements in areas used for military exercises, as well as from provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. During the hearing on the MBTA, William J. Haynes II, General Counsel for the DOD argued that conservationists actually benefit from the military's killing of birds because it "helps make some species more rare and bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one." A sensitive new-age kind of guy, don't you think?

To find out more about the necessity of keeping the ESA as intact as possible, and yes - reforming it, but in a real and positive way - read Jamie Rappaport Clark's testimony before the Senate subcommittee hearing on the ESA, given on May 19 this year. Clark is a biologist who served as head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Bill Clinton. She is currently executive VP of the Defenders of Wildlife.

(Part II will focus on an interesting new partnership between environmentalism and evangelism. It's the best news I've heard in a long time.)

| +Save/Share | |