Posted on 10/26/2005 5:38:23 PM PDT by GreenFreeper
In 1973, the American bald eagle population had drastically declined. Populations of American alligators, humpback whales and other landmark species were also diminishing, and America needed to act. In response, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The law was supposed to protect imperiled species on the brink of extinction. However, more than three decades later, the Endangered Species Act has failed to live up to its noble expectations. Today, nearly 1,300 species have been afforded the law's protections, yet, just 10 species have been taken off the list due to recovery.
The truth be known, not one single species has actually recovered as a result of the Endangered Species Act alone. The bottom line: After 30 years, the Endangered Species Act has a less than 1 percent rate of success.
Sadly, that is the history of the Endangered Species Act. Born of the best intentions, it has failed to live up to its promise, and species are more threatened today because of its serious limitations. Thirty years of the same practices has failed and despite the evidence, some maintain that we should not consider changes to the law -- changes that would ultimately encourage species recovery.
The lynchpin of the Endangered Species Act, the process of listing species and designating critical habitat under the law is ambiguous, open to arbitrary personal judgment, and does not rely on sound science or peer-reviewed research. These are the key elements within the act responsible for identifying species on the brink of extinction
and subsequently recovering them.
Even outspoken environmentalist Rep. George Miller, DCalif., has said: "There is a recognition that the current criticalhabitat arrangement doesn't work, for a whole host of reasons. . . . There are some in the environmental community who think the answer is just no to any change, and I think that's a problem."
Yet, inaccurate data and flawed science has led to the listing of numerous species with healthy populations. And critical-habitat designations often include arbitrarily drawn boundaries on a federal map that often fails to include truly "critical" habitat to the species.
Furthermore, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approximately 77 percent of listed species have failed to achieve more than a quarter of their recovery goals. In Florida, 53 percent of our endangered and threatened species are of "unknown" or "declining" status. Plainly put, we're failing to recover species.
It is also clear that federal funds could be put to better use than designating critical-habitat area. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Fish and Wildlife Service Director under President Clinton, testified that, "In 25 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act, we have found that designation of official critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while it consumes significant amounts of scarce conservation resources."
The "hands-off" approach under the current law to recovering species fails to recognize the amazing strides in technology, biology and medicine that have marked that last 30 years. If when diagnosed with an ailment the doctor told you they had prescribed the recommended treatment for 1,300 patients over the past 30 years and none of them had recovered, other, more proven treatment options would be sought.
With my support, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would reauthorize the Endangered Species Act for the first time in over 10 years. The bill will refocus the Endangered Species Act on actually recovering species. As Floridians, we can and must do better for our species.
Critics and supporters alike both agree important changes can be made. Property owners, states and local governments, for instance, need to play more-active roles. Incentives for them to be involved in the process of recovering species will pay long term dividends for imperiled species.
Nearly 90 percent of listed species occur on private land across the country. Making property owners active participants in the process is long overdue. Forward thinking proposals are necessary to encourage property owners to partner in actually recovering species.
It's concepts such as these that will strengthen the Endangered Species Act. By focusing on changes rooted in science, common-sense, technology and innovation, Congress can help recover species on the brink of extinction. Its time to take a hard look at the Endangered Species Act, its intentions and the facts, and make common sense changes for the better.
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, represents Florida's 5th Congressional District.
FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
Nothing all that new but a decent summary of ESA arguments.This statement is particularily encouraging:
Nearly 90 percent of listed species occur on private land across the country. Making property owners active participants in the process is long overdue. Forward thinking proposals are necessary to encourage property owners to partner in actually recovering species.
Nature has killed more species then man could ever match, just make room for new ones.
Interesting article. A lot of what it speaks of we have heard in bits a pieces over a period of time. But obvious is the fact that no matter what one comes up with as proof as to how in-effective the ISA has proven to be, political hacks on the left will not let go. Neither will those that receive salaries and grants etc., that support the program. It's engrained in the American psychic as say social security.
Yea, let's stop the harvesting of 100,000,000 board feet of lumber in the NW because some lumberjack might step on the rare and worthless Northwestern narrow leaf sh*tweed which is genetically identical to the common and worthless Northeastern narrow leaf sh*tweed.
At what cost?
Not only tax dollars, but also lost revenue, lost private property, & lost value of private property.
Not to metion lawsuits, etc.
***Critics and supporters alike both agree important changes can be made. Property owners, states and local governments, for instance, need to play more-active roles. Incentives for them to be involved in the process of recovering species will pay long term dividends for imperiled species. ***
What he's saying is that they want the law to give them permission to take away MORE land from property owners.
IMHO: What's being protected is not species but variations on species such as coloration and ranges. I read where they are trying to protect 13 species of West Coast Salmon when there really only 5 scientific species of West Coast salmon.
Jeez Jamie ... whataryasayin'?
What's this, our species mean?
All this time you were like, not serious?
And the answer is what?
More money?
Take a flyin' leap in the swamp you love.
That's really the primary problem. No one really knows the true defintition of a species. Logic often says one thing while all the physiological and genetical data says another. The ESA strays from science and is dictated by politics.
If you remove a species from a particular niche, something will always be ready to fill that niche. At the same time, though, I don't think that is an excuse to act irresponsibly. Natural selection alone teaches us that we should act in a manner that promotes the maintenance of conditions we find hospitable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.