Bush administration goes too far on Endangered Species Act
The Rocky
Published August 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
The Endangered Species Act has transformed the relationship between private property owners and the federal government, with landowners typically coming out on the short end. We've long called for revisions in the law to produce fewer confrontations and more cooperation in the essential effort to protect species.
Still, we cannot embrace the sweeping changes announced this month by the Department of the Interior.
The administration may have the legal authority to make such moves without congressional approval, though that's not clear. Even if that right exists, however, we don't want a lame-duck White House unilaterally revamping how the act is enforced. Congress should endorse any significant changes, and since it was not invited to participate, we wouldn't be surprised if lawmakers - or the next president - reverse the new policies.
The changes would let Interior neutralize the outside review by wildlife agencies of federal projects that could affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. Currently, when a project might have an impact on a listed species, the agency managing the project must consult with either the Fish & Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The new Interior policy would let the agency in charge - say, the Department of Transportation for a highway project - decide whether the project would alter species habitat. The two wildlife agencies would basically have to be invited before they could review projects.
Changes of this magnitude - Interior calls them the most sweeping reforms of the act in two decades, and critics agree - should be fully and publicly deliberated, not imposed by bureaucratic fiat.
And in a move that's guaranteed to have environmentalists seeing red, Interior allowed only a 30-day comment period when announcing this change in policy, instead of the 60- or 90-day window for public input that almost always accompanies any major revisions.
There's little doubt that the administration is attempting a mad dash to enact these rules - which may actually be warranted - before President Bush leaves office. But this is the wrong way to modify enforcement of federal law.
If Congress does decide to revisit the Endangered Species Act next year, here are a few revisions that could bring it into the 21st century:
* The act should provide private landowners with compensation if their property is declared "critical habitat" for a listed species and that declaration limits its use. That would reduce the incentive of landowners to try to rid their property of rare species, as has been known to happen. It would also be more fair.
* States, local governments and private conservation groups should have a larger role in managing species recovery programs. Colorado in particular has demonstrated its ability to handle this role, with Greater Outdoors Colorado funds, for example, having been used to give landowners incentives to preserve prairie dog colonies.
Some Interior secretaries have blessed such arrangements and others haven't. The law should formally encourage creative approaches by local and private actors.
* Give the Interior secretary a larger role in the decision whether to list or delist a species. When there's a scientific or policy dispute over, say, whether a subspecies really deserves protection (as with Preble's meadow jumping mouse, for example), the secretary, who is more accountable to the public, should be involved in the call.
Over the years, Western lawmakers have been essential in suggesting balanced and sensible reforms of this environmental cornerstone. As the region continues to grow, revisions in the law should become more of a national priority.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 20, 2008
6:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Congress need to dump the Endangered Species Act, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, because both have become monsters of litigation and unintended consequences. They are misused, abused, and distorted way beyond the original intentions.
August 20, 2008
7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
There are those in this country who wouldn't mind going back to days of zero government regulation when rivers were so polluted that they spontaneously caught fire, the buffalo nearly became extinct and the passenger pigeon actually did. More species are at risk than ever before and these include both plants and animals. We deny them reasonable protection at our own peril as we need to maintain biodiversity to produce and improve food crops, pharmaceuticals and to maintain stability in the world's ecosystems. Revise the Endangered species act? Perhaps, but not without careful review, which is something the current administration lacks the patience to perform. This revision by edict will be the crown of Bush's abysmal environmental legacy.
August 20, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
The ESA abuses have turned the entire environmental issue away from real science and into a radical and virulent religion based on raw emotion.
The polar bear population of the north has multiplied in size over the past 20 years.
The UN’s infamous hockey stick graphic showing a meteoric increase in global temperature has now been throughly refuted ...
August 20, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
FCZ,
Acountability is everything when it comes to regulation. I may be an environmentalist, but I do believe in accountability. I believe that every regulatory act of government should have a mandatory periodic review. The ESA is no exception. The problem comes when idealogs rule arbitrarily, as Bush has so casually done.
As for polar bears? They are a creature of the ice and are supremely adapted to living on the great ice sheets, which are rapidly melting. Polar bears could probably adapt if they had at least a few thousand years to do so. They don't have the luxury of time. This is why they need an Endangered Species Act to protect them.
As for global warming? Your post is too vague. What precisely is your point and where are your sources?
August 20, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
McCain = Bush3
August 20, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
bryant72 writes:
Actually, the Endangered Species Act had very little to do with saving the Bald Eagle. It was the banning of DDT, a chemical that caused the egg shells of the birds to weaken. Once DDT left the environment of the Bald Eagle their numbers came back.
August 20, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
The question here, whether you like the ESA or not, is whether a lame duck administration should be allowed to shove through a complete rewrite of the law without any real attempt to consult either with the public or the elected congress. The conservatives literally went mad when Clinton tried it but now that their guy is trying to gut the law with no accountability, they have no problem with it.
Considering that this administration has already admitted that a totally unqualified political hack was overruling endangered species determinations made by scientists, this group has no credibility on this issue. Couple that with a Justice Department that was illegally packed with right wingers, it does not appear that this administration is really looking at any type of unbiased review.
If you disagree with the ESA, have an upfront discussion and propose legislation. This kind of back room no accountability garbage is one of the worst legacies of this failed administration.
August 20, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
FCZ
I was right with ya on the first one.
Not quite sure your last one is scientific though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_s...
http://environment.newscientist.com/c...
Note the error bars on the original graph. The revised one still falls within the original error bars. This is hardly throughly refuted.
There's very few black and white answers when it comes to objective data.
August 20, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
I didn't think zero regulation was the issue here, just greater local control. People are tired of "the man" coming down on them all the time. And I recall those days when the rivers were burning. A film crew would create an oil slick, then torch it.
August 20, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
The Endangered Species Act is an overbearing and costly law. It destroyed communities, cost billions if not trillions of dollars, and destroyed the property rights of countless land owners. The administration did not go too far; it didn't go far enough!
Of course anybody who dares challenging this law, is labeled as someone who wants to pollute the rivers and destroy the environment. This is far from the truth, but it is often the sound-bite used. To mitigate the impact of use near water supplies and habitats is a good thing. To ruin the lives of people in the name of preservation is ridiculous.
The law should be re-written to mitigate the impact to communities and land-owners as well as species and habitat.
Furthermore, more species then we can possibly count have gone extinct throughout this planets history. Some adapted and survived but most didn't. This cycle will continue regardless of what we do or don't do. The loss of some species may appeal to our sensibilities, but their fate is a fate natural in an ever changing world. For those that think this planet can be preserved in its current state, you are completely delusional because it won't. This planet will change, we will adapt or we won't, and this planet WILL eventually be destroyed in one way or another. The sun is finite and all that you hold dear in the "Green" world will die if not before the sun is dead. To think it can be preserved is insane and fanatical.
This law is used time and again as a strong arm to force the "extremist" environmental agenda. We should be good stewards and use our resources wisely, but to preserve at all costs is a fools errand. This law is inflexible and goes too far!
August 20, 2008
6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
bree42 writes:
Impeach the jerk..
This man has done nothing but destroy all that we hold dear.. Our children, Our wild horses, Our wolves and now all wildlife is in his way.. I wonder who paid him off this time???? The man is irrational. When do we say enough???
August 20, 2008
7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Castle writes:
The ESA and the Wilderness acts have been so bastardized that they don't do what they are supposed to. The private citizen and private property owner always come out on the short end. The only people who benifit are the trial lawyers.
The ESA and WA have done more to stiffel the economy and haven't saved anything. Do we really think thayt a fly in California or a rat is more important then economic developement? Is our economy so robust that we don't need new business or expansion of old business? The WA has done nothing more then close off areas of publicl land to the majority of the American people. As I type there are people in California that want to designate large tracts of land in the desert as Wiolderness. Areas that have seen the marks of man, that do have roads in them. That's wrong and not in the idea of a wilderness.
Scrap both the ESA and WA, start over and lets see if we can get it right this time. We'll have to keep the law suit happy enviro nuts out of it though.
August 20, 2008
10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Castle writes:
titancain writes:
"If it were up to republicans, our air would resemble CHINA"
Do you mind explaining what the air in China has to do with the ESA and WA? If you understood the difference you might be able to stay on topic and not make a fool out of yourself.
August 20, 2008
10:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Uh...excuse me. I don't see the tree-huggers and their ilk complaining when Bush unilaterally issues orders to NOT enforce our immigration laws to please the open borders crowd, including the RMN. Or when our governor vetos a bill to make it easier for illegals to get a driver's license, then puts in the same easy requirements via an administrative action in the DMV. Apparently it depends on who's ox is being gored, eh? Mike
August 21, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Mike,
Let's see, where was the editor speaking toward illegal immigration? May I suggest that you grind that axe after you have found an opinion piece on that subject?
August 21, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
bree42 writes:
The ESA and WA have done more to stiffel the economy and haven't saved anything. Do we really think thayt a fly in California or a rat is more important then economic developement? Is our economy so robust that we don't need new business or expansion of old business? The WA has done nothing more then close off areas of publicl land to the majority of the American people. As I type there are people in California that want to designate large tracts of land in the desert as Wiolderness. Areas that have seen the marks of man, that do have roads in them. That's wrong and not in the idea of a wilderness.
I agree, rats and flys will outlive us.. However wildlife areas will not, even those with roads through them. I haven't seen a wildlife area yet that doesn't have roads. Even the fragile life of the desert needs to be preserved. Our children and grandchildren deserve to have that enviroment saved for their enjoyment. The animals that live there should have the right to a life as well. I think the enviro people are trying to save area's of land for the future. Not just to save a fly, but to save those wilderness areas. The fly is just there and an excuse to save that land.
August 21, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
bree42 writes:
I agree, rats and flys will outlive us.. However wildlife areas will not, even those with roads through them. I haven't seen a wildlife area yet that doesn't have roads. Even the fragile life of the desert needs to be preserved. Our children and grandchildren deserve to have that enviroment saved for their enjoyment. The animals that live there should have the right to a life as well. I think the enviro people are trying to save area's of land for the future. Not just to save a fly, but to save those wilderness areas. The fly is just there and an excuse to save that land.
--------------------------
OK, having a trail road does NOT destroy the wildlife!!!! ...nor does using these lands responsibly. Given the abundance of Deer, ELK, Bear, Fox, Mountain Lion, including their young, my home is proof of that. There is a difference between acting responsibly and hands off. I am all for acting responsibly. I am ready to go to war with those who say hands off. Keeping these lands public and undeveloped is good. However, cutting them off from resources or recreation is wrong. There needs to be a balance. Environmentalists using legislation like the Endangered Species Act or Clinton's road-less executive order goes too far. I am not advocating a complete reversal just common sense usage of our land. The environmental rhetoric and fear mongering is getting extremely old!!! I hope people begin to see through the BS. It is starting to happen with oil and gas exploration.
August 21, 2008
8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Castle writes:
BREE42 writes: "Our children and grandchildren deserve to have that enviroment saved for their enjoyment.
How will they ever see it if they can't get to it? Will our childern and grandchildern suspend the WA so they can explore it, or will they just look at pictures on line?
BREE42 writes: " I think the enviro people are trying to save area's of land for the future."
Again I ask, "who's going to see it?" "Yes kids, there's all that land that was saved for you, now if you can hike like a mountain goat and as far as a camel you can go see it."
I'm not opposed to wilderness areas, I just think that the WA is over used and used for political reasons.
August 22, 2008
1:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
bree42 writes:
This isn't about the WA, at least not on my behalf..
This is about the ESA...
This is about the ones that are being destroyed. Because Bush says its ok.
Our wild horses are being shipped out by the truck load to slaughter, because Bush signed the papers to have them destroyed. If you are unaware of the real facts of horse slaughter please take a look on the web, the facts are easy to find..
Our wolves are being gunned down, because Bush signed the papers to end their lives. There were less than 1,400 in the US when he signed those papers and they are loosing an average of one per day since that paper was signed.. Including newborn pups in their dens.
This is about every other animal that is in the way of "progress". The man has no morals, he cares about profit and nothing else.
August 22, 2008
1:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
bree42 writes:
To add to this so you know who I am
I am a rancher, not an enviro nut. But someone that believes that all life has a right to be here.