 | ||
 |     |  |
| |||||||||
Reform Of Endangered Species Act
As one of the few members still serving in Congress who voted for the original Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, I have a unique perspective to the continuing debate over it's reauthorization. Conservation and good management of our wildlife resources has always been one of my main priorities, but it's been disheartening over the years to see how a law with such a vital mission has been misused and abused to further other goals that have nothing to do with protecting wildlife or plants. In its present form, the ESA has became one of our nation's strictest and most stringent environmental laws. Passed in response to a concern that bald eagles, grizzly bears, and other such species were in danger of becoming extinct, the ESA embodies a rigid approach to species protection in the United States. While the Act should be a law that is universally embraced by all people throughout the nation, it has become one of the most controversial environmental laws ever passed. It has pitted countless individuals, communities and regions against the federal implementation of the ESA. These people and communities fully support to goal of saving species but they adamantly oppose how the government has sought to accomplish this effort. A law this important needs the support of all people. Unfortunately, it has failed and will continue to fail under its current form. The ESA officially expired in September 1992. The Democrat-controlled House, Senate and Executive Branch failed to reauthorize the Act during the 103rd Congress. Last session, the Clinton Administration led the effort to stop Congressional reauthorization. In January, I asked Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to submit a legislative proposal for ESA reauthorization by April 1st. After waiting three months, I recently received a letter saying he wouldn't do so. You would think that since the ESA expired over four years ago - just before President Clinton took office - his Administration would have offered at least one legislative proposal for America's most important environmental law. Sadly, it has continually refused to do so. Unfortunately, this Administration would rather sit back and criticize Congressional reform efforts rather than submit its own solution. This is not totally unexpected because the Administration has determined on many important issues that its more politically adept to offer nothing and criticize Congressional efforts, rather than offer legislation to solve existing problems. In other words, it's easier to shoot arrows than be the target. While this is politically safe, it is morally wrong. Because I truly believe that public acceptance of the ESA depends on a new, less confrontational approach to species protection, I made improving the Act one of my top priorities during the 104th session. Last Congress, the Resources Committee held 15 hearings on the ESA throughout the nation to learn how people want to improve its implementation. Based on the testimony of hundreds of people and on over 5,000 additional recommendations, we introduced bipartisan legislation (H.R. 2275) in 1995 - the Endangered Species Conservation and Management Act, with 129 cosponsors. This bill was subsequently approved by the Resources Committee. The purpose of this legislation was to reaffirm America's goal to protect endangered species. That continues to be our primary and ultimate objective. Our effort to improve the ESA is based upon the premise that we must do a better job of managing our wildlife to keep them from reaching "threatened" or "endangered" status. In addition, the ESA needs updating and improvement because of three basic reasons:
ESA's Record of Failure: The ESA must be reformed because it simply is not working. The current ESA requires the Secretary of Interior (or in some cases the Secretary of Commerce) to list all species that are either in danger of becoming extinct or may be threatened with extinction. Once a species is listed as either "endangered" or "threatened" (a less restricted status), the ESA requires that species be protected "at all cost". However, many of the "species" listed under the ESA, are not species at all, but subspecies and localized population segments of subspecies. Since 1973, more than 1,000 species in the United States have been listed as being "threatened" or "endangered." However, only 21 species have been removed from the list. Of the 21, seven were delisted because of extinction. Of these, only one species - the dusky seaside sparrow - had any legitimate chance of surviving. Another eight species were removed because of "data error" - they never should have been listed in the first place because their populations were much higher than initially believed. Only six species have been delisted because of recovering populations - and not always because of the ESA. In the case of the arctic peregrine falcon, the recovery was primarily due to restrictions on the use of pesticides - not the ESA. Many scientific experts have testified that most of the gains in species recovery have occurred in spite of the ESA, not because of it. Private conservation efforts and other state and federal laws are often responsible, but not given sufficient credit, for species recovery. With hundreds of other species awaiting federal action for a listing as "threatened" or "endangered", it's imperative that we make the ESA more effective and increase its support from people in every region of the nation. Private Property Owners Want To Be Part of the Solution: As we work to improve the act, we must do so without trampling the rights of private land owners. Under the existing ESA regulations, private land owners can - and do - lose the use of their land without any compensation if an endangered species turns their land into protected habitat. These land owners have been forced to bear the financial burden of providing habitat for virtually all of these species. Predictably, this has created a growing national unrest against the ESA where these species exist. Over 90 percent of all 'threatened' and 'endangered' species have habitat on non-federally owned land. If we don't provide incentives for private land owners to provide habitat for these species, our goal of protecting them will fail miserably. ESA gives the federal government broad control over private land that is - or may be - habitat for an endangered species. The law prohibits the "take" of a member of any species on the list. "Take" is defined not only to intentionally harm a species, but also to modify or change the land on which the species may live. A landowner can be prosecuted for impacting his or her private land by normal activities such as farming, ranching, building homes, roads, flood protection structures, and the like. An overwhelmingly majority of Americans live in urban areas and don't understand the hardships the ESA has created for rural people and communities. The existing regulations provide a disincentive to private land owners to provide habitat for endangered species. This is counter-productive. It's bad for the species because it encourages land owners to destroy habitat which is vital to the recovery of these species. Conservation-minded people throughout the nation are virtually forced to destroy potential habitat in order to keep endangered species off their land to avoid the severe economic consequences. Better Science and Biological Assistance: We must also work to provide the best possible science and biology in restoring the health of species. Humans have accomplished some wonderful advancements for our own species and we must use our knowledge and technology to help other species. We can also work through conservation programs using captive breeding, headstarting, and reintroduction to increase endangered populations. The current ESA requires listings to be based on the "best available data." This definition does not require the data to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Since the decision to list a species often results in severe land use restrictions and costly recovery measures, the listing decision should be based on sound, peer reviewed science, not whatever information is available at the time of a listing decision. Improving the ESA means relying on better information on species populations and threats to their survival. More scientific data should be obtained through surveys and research from public and private sources before listings occur. All data used in the decision process should be open and available to the public for comment. Many people have valuable knowledge about the plants and animals in their communities. There is ample evidence to support claims that some listings have been politically motivated to stop development activities, rather than to add protections to species truly in danger of extinction. We need to create special teams with local input to advise the Secretary of Interior on biological, economic and intergovernmental considerations in developing recovery strategies. Improving the ESA means achieving a reasonable balance between our conservation needs and the social and economic needs of people. We have an obligation to spend money on species conservation, but that does not mean that it should be spent foolishly or ineffectively. The ESA must be improved to prevent overzealous bureaucrats from imposing unnecessary and burdensome costs on local governments and private citizens, and wasting taxpayers money. We must use our federal land base more effectively, while maintaining the ability to use the many resources our federal lands have historically contributed to society. The federal government owns more than one third of the land in the United States - about 650 million acres. These are mainly for a variety of uses, including recreation, timber harvesting, grazing, oil and gas production, and environmental conservation. Over the past 30 years, Congress has committed itself to improving habitat for wildlife on these federally owned lands, dedicating over 270 million acres almost exclusively for conservation. Professional Environmentalists Distort Our Goals: While some national environmental leaders support some changes in the act, many refuse to admit the need for reform. These professional environmentalists publicly claim that anyone seeking to improve or reform the ESA are, in their words, trying to "gut", "abolish" or "repeal" protections for species. The unfortunate fact is many of these national organizations see ESA reform as a vehicle to raise money and increase membership. Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, in a mailing to the Club's membership stated that because Congress is seeking to reform the ESA "the pre-decided sentence for hundreds of species - if our opponents get their way - is EXTINCTION!" Pope's letter continues: "I'm asking you to sit down right now and please make out the most generous contribution you can to this vital effort . . . only the Sierra Club has the ability to mobilize the American people to accomplish this all-important goal - so give today and give generously . . . I'm asking you to give these species a fighting chance for life." The ESA has also become a lucrative investment for many professional environmentalists, providing regular income from lawsuits against the federal government which are paid for by the taxpayers. Under the ESA, federal court judges awarded attorneys fees and costs to environmentalists ranging from a low of $1,000 to a high of $3,550,000 in some 87 cases filed in the last nine years. The total for ESA cases according to recent Justice Department records for lawsuits to protect a listed species is $9,157,800. This does not include cases filed under other environmental statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act or the National Forest Management Act. Unfortunately, the rhetoric will only get worse as the professional environmentalists try to cash-in on Congress' effort to make the ESA a law that works - and has the support of Americans in every region of the nation. (U.S. Rep. Don Young, a Republican from Alaska, is the Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Resources.) |
|
Email comments
or questions about the website to SFA |