|
The ESA was originally conceived to protect the Bald Eagle and a few other species that were truly on the brink of extinction. Today the Act has become the weapon of choice used by Anti-Access Extremists to shut down development, obliterate the concept of private property rights, deny recreational use of open lands, and transfer land-use control to the federal government.
The Act ignores the rights of the ordinary person. Private citizens, businesses and communities, especially those directly affected by conservations decisions, are often ignored in the ESA processes - many times leading to costly litigation after the fact. The Act needs to be amended to provide for earlier and more meaningful opportunities for citizens to participate and more citizen involvement in the planning and consultation processes. The public must have access to the listing process for endangered plants or animals.
Conservation efforts under the ESA should be based on sound science. The current law requires that every ESA action must be based on scientific information on a species or its habitat, but the existing process has often led to protection actions based on anecdotal or questionable reports and findings.
There should be a preference for field tested and peer reviewed data. A requirement for independent scientific review is necessary. The scientific data should include a historical context such as population trends, ranges, and fluctuations. Data should come from all sources, including property owners, recreational groups, and other interested parties.
Good science strengthens the ESA, it does not weaken it. It means better results for the endangered species, and for human activity. Scientific peer review often saves money by exposing better more cost effective ways to help species and avoid costly mistakes.
The Act should create the right incentives. The ESA reflects the worst kind of public policy - one that creates fear and hardship in our citizens. Because of the ESA, as currently written, the very existence of allegedly threatened or endangered species is a threat to people's homes and livelihoods.
ESA restrictions apply when land or water serves as habitat for threatened or endangered species. To avoid ESA regulation, some property owners have destroyed habitat to discourage the entry of protected species. The Act needs to be amended to provide incentives for property owners to conserve, rather than destroy habitat, and to provide regulatory certainty to property owners who voluntarily participate in conservation plans.
The ESA has become a contentious, much abused process that has resulted in mistakes that haven't truly preserved the species that the Act was designed to protect.
The Act needs to be amended now with a few simple principles:
Animals and plants should be responsibly conserved for the benefit and enjoyment of mankind.
More citizen involvement is needed in the planning processes before a plant or animal is protected.
Conservation efforts under the ESA should be based on sound science with field testing and peer review, as well as independent scientific review.
The Act should create incentives to balance property rights of landowners and recreational groups with that of threatened or endangered species.
The ESA was originally conceived to protect the Bald Eagle and a few other species that were truly on the brink of extinction. Today the Act has become the weapon of choice used by anti-access organizations to shut down development, farming, ranching and to obliterate the concept of private property rights transferring land-use control to the federal government.
The recent action by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service determining to continue listing Peirson's milk-vetch in the Algodones Dunes in Southern California is an outrageous example of the abuse of the Act as currently drafted. This weed was originally listed as Threatened in 1998 based on anecdotal evidence regarding harm from OHV vehicles.
In year 2000, the BLM threw out field studies from a 1990 report and determined them to be biased and scientifically unsound that were used to list the Peirson's Milk-Vetch in 1998. In October 2001 a petition to remove the plant from the list was submitted by off-road enthusiasts and included sound scientific evidence, the plant had actually flourished in areas where off-road activities took place. Under the present ESA processes, the Service ignored this sound science and has determined to continue the listing.
The Act ignores the rights of the ordinary person. Private citizens, businesses and communities, especially those directly affected by conservations decisions, are often ignored in the ESA processes - many times leading to costly litigation after the fact. This Act needs to be amended to provide for earlier and more meaningful opportunities for citizens to participate and more citizen involvement in the planning and consultation processes.
Good science strengthens the ESA, it does not weaken it. It means better results for the Endangered species, and for human activity. Scientific peer review often saves money by exposing better and more cost effective ways to help species and avoid costly mistakes.
|