Dback Jon

The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, has been credited for saving from extinction many species, including our National symbol, the Bald Eagle.

The Act is itself under assault, as California Representive Richard Pombo is trying to take the law off the books. The law is also under assault by those who claim the law is an unconstitutional extension of Congress' powers, a view endorsed by SC Justices Thomas and Scalia, and argued by nominee Roberts.

__________________


R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

Dback Jon

Proposed Legislation Would Destroy Endangered Species Act

Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), a longtime foe of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is about to introduce a bill that will dramatically alter the reach of the act. Titled the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, the Pombo bill has infuriated environmental groups, who have dubbed it the "Wildlife Extinction Bill."


ESA is in many ways the underpinning of the entire structure of America's environmental protection system. The Pombo bill would actually repeal ESA entirely in 2015.


Pombo's bill dramatically alters the criteria a species must meet in order to qualify as endangered. While the current ESA requires that species be listed if their survival is threatened "in a significant portion of [their] range," Pombo's bill only considers a species to be endangered if its survival is threatened in its current remaining occupied habitat. In other words if a healthy population of an endangered species exists in an isolated region, but is threatened elsewhere, it would not be considered endangered.


Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, says that this change in the Act's language "would wipe most currently endangered species off the list and prevent most others from ever getting there, making endangered species recovery impossible."


Pombo's bill also limits which species can be considered endangered by allowing only species imperiled by "human activities or by invasive species, competition from other species, drought, fire or other catastrophic natural causes," whereas the current ESA requires the listing of any endangered species, regardless of what threatens its survival.


Lacking any scientific rationale, the Pombo bill defines invasive species to exclude those "grown for food, fiber or human use." This change makes the criteria to qualify as an endangered species even more stringent because many harmful invasive species, such as bullfrogs, buffel grass, brown trout, carp, tamarisk, and predatory snails, were or still are being introduced for "human use."


Defying the ESA's goal of assisting endangered species recovery, Pombo's bill proposes to protect only enough habitat for an endangered species to survive on the brink of extinction, not enough to grow. The ESA currently designates "critical habitat" as areas "essential to the conservation of the species," regardless of whether or not the species has a presence there.


Critics charge that by limiting critical habitat to a bare minimum, Pombo's legislation contradicts the overarching goal of the ESA, which is to prevent endangered species from going extinct.


Jamie Rappaport Clark, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and current vice president of Defenders of Wildlife points out that, "Loss of habitat is widely recognized by scientists to be the primary cause of species endangerment and extinction."


Further inhibiting endangered species from restoring their population to healthy levels, Pombo's bill gets rid of the current ESA requirement to assist endangered species recovery using "all methods and procedures necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species" back to levels where it is no longer considered endangered. Pombo's bill makes the recovery requirement optional.


The Pombo bill also severely limits protection for "threatened species" whose populations are in rapid decline but not yet considered "endangered." The current ESA mandates protection of critical habitat for both threatened and endangered species, Pombo's bill flat-out disallows federal protection for threatened species.

__________________


R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

40yearfan

Thanks Jon. I voted for more "common sense".

__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain

nidan

But to most conservative republicans 'common sense' means gut the Act or repeal it entirerly

SirChaz

The problem with the ESA is it's conflicts with property rights.

If we can make it more "common sense" to help protect the rights of property owners then I can come off the hardcore libertarian "unconstitutional" stance.


I want to protect endangered species but species went extinct before we came along. We shouldn't suspend the needs of people to attempt to save every species that might be in trouble. If we are directly causing damage we should what we can to correct it but some times the evidence is incomplete.

Hardcore absolutes on either side are not productive.

__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken

LoyaltyisaCurse

Aint dat da truth!

__________________
Goin' "Double Maverick!"

Dback Jon

So where do you draw the line? Does Wal-Mart have the absolute right to clear-cut/level the last remaining habitat of a species in order to have it's 10,000 SuperCenter at the perfect location?

__________________


R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

SirChaz

Given you have locked in a scenario with no options.

There is not enough information but basically yes. Don't they have to conform to State and local laws and the sensitivies of society? Maybe that is where the focus of this concern over species should be centered?

Maybe we should all take up a collection and create a reserve?


Does the Federal Government have absolute right to tell people what they can or cannot do with legally aquired property?

__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken

Dback Jon

Property rights have never been absolute in this country - we have zoning laws, etc - for good reason. Would you want a chemical plant built next-door to you?

In my scenario (made narrow on purpose), Wal-mart has options - they could build on a different plot of land, they could tailor the building in such a way that it preserves the necessary habitat, they could purchase additional land that is in not such a 'prime' location and relocate the endangered species (which can be done with certain plants/animals). But with out the ESA as the hammer, there is no incentive for Walmart to come up with creative ways to preserve habitat and make money.

Part of the problem SirChaz is there is too much about nature that we do NOT know - we do know that everything is interconnected, and seeming innocent decisions can have profound consequences - so erring on the side of nature should always be our first choice.

__________________


R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

Rivercard

in some cases yes. There is a little something called public interest that should be taken into account.

SirChaz

They do or they don't. The question was about absolute power of the Federal Government.

Clearly you and Jon think they do.

Thank you for at least answering the question.

__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken

SirChaz

Fine but Zoning laws are not Federal and absolute.

There is no incentive for companies to do the right thing?

Your problem is that these things are not popular enough or people are too apathetic to care. So there for we have to make decisions for people because according to your worldview people are not smart enough to make the "right" decision without the ESA or other coersive measures.

You're right there is a lot we don't know. I tend to agree with you about the interconnectedness (if that is a word) of things. Unfortunately that lack of knowledge cuts both ways and that is something not everyone is ready to admit.

__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken

Rivercard

This is my beef with Libertarians. They tend to think in only absolutist terms and do not allow for compromise. They support utopian ideals and don't work in reality, therefore dismissing almost everything.

BTW, I agree with many Libertarian ideals.

nidan

Unfortunatly the hardcore truth is that oncea species goes exticnt there is no bringing it back.

Conversely I you are inconienenced by not being able to plaster houses and shopping malls on your land for a few years. You can always try again later.

Yes species have always been going extinct but not because we allowed big business to pollute land, pave it over, clear cut log forests etc ... It was because evolution selected out those species that couldn't compete but then I guess the religious conservatives don't believe in evolution either.

SirChaz

Substitute Environmentalists for Libertarians in the above passage and my thoughts exactly.

__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken