Bush rushes to gut Endangered Species Act

It's not yet Labor Day, and those of us who still adhere to old-school election rituals are pledged to keep politics at arm's length until we get past the last barbecue.

So let's refrain from asking that old crowd stopper, "Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?" Something could always change between now and Sept. 1. The economy might surge, gas prices may plummet, America's standing in the rest of the world could rise. It's possible that peace and prosperity would re-emerge.

Let's wait just in case. Still, it's hard not to take note of the contrasts between the waning days of the Clinton and Bush administrations. As George W. Bush heads toward the home stretch, he is working, as did Bill Clinton, to solidify his environmental legacy.

Eight years ago, a bruised and battered Clinton used his presidential authority to designate three new national monuments, two in Arizona and one in California. The result was preservation of 1 million acres on the Grand Canyon's north rim; 71,000 acres on public land north of Phoenix with prehistoric rock inscriptions and American Indian ruins; and thousands of small islands, rocks and reefs off the California coast. He also expanded by 8,000 acres the Pinnacles National Monument near San Jose.

Not to be outdone on the environment, Bush has been pushing for offshore oil drilling.

Then, in a summer stealth attack revealed while the president was hugging beach volleyball players in China and scolding Russia for shockingly invading another sovereign nation, the Bush administration moved to gut the Endangered Species Act. Among other changes, the administration proposes to cut out the advice of government scientists on whether subdivisions, dams, highways and other projects have the potential to harm endangered animals and plants.

Federal agencies would have the authority to make those decisions without the input of biologists and other scientists. Boil this cabbage down, and you get to the heart of matters: Political appointees run federal agencies; politics trumps science. Not to sound partisan before Labor Day, but is anyone surprised?

Even better, the proposed new rules would be subject to only a 30-day public comment period before being finalized by the Interior and Commerce departments. That's it. If they get the OK, the administration would have enough time to impose the rules before you-know-what in November. In a hint on how the agencies will react, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has already defended the rules, saying they were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act wouldn't be used as a back door to regulate gases blamed for global warming. There's that pesky science thing again.

The Associated Press characterized the action as the biggest overhaul of endangered species regulations since 1986, saying it would accomplish through rules what Congress has been unwilling to do despite pressure from the usual suspects.

The changes would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize that the agency itself determined was unlikely to harm endangered wildlife and their habitat. Government wildlife experts currently participate in tens of thousands of such reviews each year. The revisions would also limit which effects could be considered harmful and set a 60-day deadline for wildlife experts to evaluate a project. If no decision was made within 60 days, the project could move ahead.

Federal agencies currently must consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or to damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely.

This can be a burden, and a lot of scientists and conservationists might go along with the idea that the law needs some changes. Rules have already been revised numerous times. But at a time when scientists say species are declining an epochal rate, do we really want to eliminate science from decisions on the fate of 1,353 animals and plants on the U.S. threatened or endangered species list?

A new administration could freeze pending regulations or reverse them, or Congress could overturn the rules through legislation. Either would take a lot longer than 60 days, and neither is a sure thing.

When he set aside the national monuments a few days before he left office, Clinton said: "If there is one thing that unites our fractious, argumentative country across generations, parties and time, it is the love we have for our land."

Exactly, this thing is out of control, and should be scrapped, or at least scaled back.

There have been millions of species that have ceased to be, why should a squafish, or a hog sucker, or a snail darter cost the taxpayer tens of millions of dollars to preserve?

This stinker was sold as “Protect the Bald Eagle”..protect the noble Bear....what it has become is simply disgusting.

... the Bush administration moved to gut the Endangered Species ...

You’ve got to gut ‘em before you can eat ‘em. There’s room for all God’s creatures, right next to my mashed potatoes.”

Winner of the weekly best ROFLMAO award.

Listings are often made on the basis of “best available science” including no science or little science. That is how our SOCCC coho was listed. They had no historic information on the size of the runs. Moyle had done pressence and absence studies, but coho are three year cohorts and he only did two of the three years. One of those runs is robust, one middlen and one poor.

Also, genetics indicated that some of the runs were derived from hatchery fish imported from Skamania Washington - not even native to the area. Nevertheless, they listed the coho under ESA and have used it to take water from farms, fallow ag land, prohibit forestry activities, close roads and slowly constrict land use activities until we starve. How are you supposed to “restore” populations on the fringes of their range if there is no documentation that robust populations ever existed?

You should see some of the “political” science that passes for science by the Riverkeeper and Cal Trout. They hire a scientist, do a vapid and biased study and then government agencies embrace it as foundational and base decisions upon it. They just did that with our dam issue. The environmentalists hired their scientist, who used an obscure experimental sediment model that assumed a particle size at variance with reality and handed the bogus results to the Coastal Conservancy. The CC embraced the flawed study and built upon it for costs analysis. Meanwhile, one of the largest dam removal projects ever considered in the United States is relying on a complete piece of cr*p model to predict impacts on communities downstream.

Don’t buy the “science” argument. Most of what environmentalists pass off as science is political science.

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.