Proposed Endangered Species Bill Rescinds Sound Science
In addition to the dramatic crippling of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) examined in yesterday’s BushGreenwatch, Rep. Richard Pombo’s proposed Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, would do other harms as well.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a nationwide policy to protect threatened species from unregulated taking (hunting, harming, or harassing). The Pombo bill would prohibit such protection; instead it would require the agency to issue separate regulations for each species, creating a bureaucratic nightmare for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). [1]
Moving beyond the nightmare into the realm of the irrational, the Pombo bill would also require that citizens supply the FWS with all data and studies used in petitions to get a species listed. It would further require the Service to duplicate and store all data and reports used in listing critical habitat decisions in every state in which the species exists. This would entail the duplication of millions of pages of information that no one has requested.
“This will keep Fish and Wildlife Service biologists away from the field and chained to Xerox machines,” Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, told BushGreenwatch.
The mind-numbing bureaucracy created by the Pombo bill is not the only way it affects sound science. Another provision contributes to the growing concern over the politicization of science.
The Endangered Species Act currently requires that all decisions be based on the “best available scientific and commercial information.” Given the ever-improving nature of science and technology, the term “best” is deliberately left ambiguous in order to leave the decision up to the biologists who assess the health of species populations. [2]
The Pombo bill ignores scientific advances. Instead it leaves the interpretation of “best” science to the discretion of the Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton.
“This is a key issue because the ESA is the only law that says all decisions must be made with the best available science, mandating that the question of what is ‘best’ should be up to the scientific community,” said Suckling. “But Pombo’s bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to develop her own definition and use it to ignore studies she feels are insignificant.”
Michael Senatore, legislative counsel at Defenders of Wildlife, adds that such terminology could invite an increase in industry litigation, contradicting one of Pombo’s stated reasons for rewriting the ESA, which was to limit unnecessary lawsuits.
“This is blatantly inconsiderate of the rhetoric that says there are too many lawsuits surrounding the ESA,” Senatore told BushGreenwatch.
The Pombo bill opens virtually every stage of the endangered species listing process to litigation from industry, while essentially barring lawsuits from environmental groups. While it establishes an appeals process, which can be invoked by “any person that would be injured,” it allows the Secretary of Interior to define who qualifies as an injured party. “The expectation is that the Secretary will only allow economic harm to qualify as an injury, which means that only corporations and landowners who have financial stakes can appeal, but scientists and environmentalists cannot,” said Suckling.
“There has already been an acceleration of industry lawsuits against the ESA since 2001. Deliberately opening up more opportunities for industry to litigate is absurd,” said Bill Snape, chairman of the Endangered Species Coalition. While Snape does not expect the Pombo bill to reach the House floor without changes, “It does lay down the framework for future legislative attacks on the Endangered Species Act.”
###
SOURCES:
[1] “Pombo Bill would repeal endangered species act, eliminate recovery goals and requirements,” Center for Biological Diversity, Jul. 8, 2005
[2] Ibid. [1]
BushGreenwatch | 1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 463-6670
Web site comments: info@bushgreenwatch.org
Copyright 2003 Environmental Media Services
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a nationwide policy to protect threatened species from unregulated taking (hunting, harming, or harassing). The Pombo bill would prohibit such protection; instead it would require the agency to issue separate regulations for each species, creating a bureaucratic nightmare for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). [1]
Moving beyond the nightmare into the realm of the irrational, the Pombo bill would also require that citizens supply the FWS with all data and studies used in petitions to get a species listed. It would further require the Service to duplicate and store all data and reports used in listing critical habitat decisions in every state in which the species exists. This would entail the duplication of millions of pages of information that no one has requested.
“This will keep Fish and Wildlife Service biologists away from the field and chained to Xerox machines,” Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, told BushGreenwatch.
The mind-numbing bureaucracy created by the Pombo bill is not the only way it affects sound science. Another provision contributes to the growing concern over the politicization of science.
The Endangered Species Act currently requires that all decisions be based on the “best available scientific and commercial information.” Given the ever-improving nature of science and technology, the term “best” is deliberately left ambiguous in order to leave the decision up to the biologists who assess the health of species populations. [2]
The Pombo bill ignores scientific advances. Instead it leaves the interpretation of “best” science to the discretion of the Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton.
“This is a key issue because the ESA is the only law that says all decisions must be made with the best available science, mandating that the question of what is ‘best’ should be up to the scientific community,” said Suckling. “But Pombo’s bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to develop her own definition and use it to ignore studies she feels are insignificant.”
Michael Senatore, legislative counsel at Defenders of Wildlife, adds that such terminology could invite an increase in industry litigation, contradicting one of Pombo’s stated reasons for rewriting the ESA, which was to limit unnecessary lawsuits.
“This is blatantly inconsiderate of the rhetoric that says there are too many lawsuits surrounding the ESA,” Senatore told BushGreenwatch.
The Pombo bill opens virtually every stage of the endangered species listing process to litigation from industry, while essentially barring lawsuits from environmental groups. While it establishes an appeals process, which can be invoked by “any person that would be injured,” it allows the Secretary of Interior to define who qualifies as an injured party. “The expectation is that the Secretary will only allow economic harm to qualify as an injury, which means that only corporations and landowners who have financial stakes can appeal, but scientists and environmentalists cannot,” said Suckling.
“There has already been an acceleration of industry lawsuits against the ESA since 2001. Deliberately opening up more opportunities for industry to litigate is absurd,” said Bill Snape, chairman of the Endangered Species Coalition. While Snape does not expect the Pombo bill to reach the House floor without changes, “It does lay down the framework for future legislative attacks on the Endangered Species Act.”
###
SOURCES:
[1] “Pombo Bill would repeal endangered species act, eliminate recovery goals and requirements,” Center for Biological Diversity, Jul. 8, 2005
[2] Ibid. [1]
BushGreenwatch | 1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 463-6670
Web site comments: info@bushgreenwatch.org
Copyright 2003 Environmental Media Services
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 3:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home