Posted on 08/15/2011 6:15:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
History tells us that listing a critter as an endangered species does little for the species and can do a great deal of harm to the local economies—the spotted owl and the delta smelt are two oft-cited cases. But there is not a big body of evidence showing how these listing decisions were made. It was just assumed that the species plight warranted protection.
But that was before the listing proposal for the dunes sagebrush lizard threatened a large segment of U.S. domestic oil production and the economies of Southeastern New Mexico and West Texas.
Rallies in opposition to the listing have drawn hundreds of irate citizens, hearings on the matter have had overflow crowds, and the public register has pages and pages of public comment. Both ABC and Fox News have done stories on the lizard
Acting on the outrage of his constituents and using his law enforcement background, New Mexico State Representative Dennis Kintigh gathered a group of independent scientists—several from area universities—who have spent the last several months reviewing the science underlying the listing. Their report will be released in a public meeting on Monday, August 15, in Artesia, New Mexico, in a roundtable format with the scientists available for questions.
Combining Kintigh’s FBI skills with the scientists’ expertise, the team is exposing fatal flaws in the proposed rule that should bring every previous listing, and the entire process, into question.
While the complete report will be available online on Monday, I’ve met with Kintigh and have a draft copy.
One of the biggest concerns is the supposedly independent peer review of the science on which the proposed rule is based. The Federal Register states:“It is the policy of the services to incorporate independent peer review in listing and recovery activities.”
To the average citizen, the underlying science may appear to have independent peer review as five different universities are listed as offering review—however, no names of the individuals or their qualifications are provided. The anonymous peer review process is routine in scientific journals, but in such settings, there is an established and trusted editorial board and reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest.
But in Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings, the public should be appalled by the shroud of secrecy. This decision involves public money and has a large potential for direct economic impact on the surrounding communities, and, to a lesser extent, the whole country. At the least, peer review needs to be transparent. Better yet would be a process where advocates from each side can clash openly before independent decision makers.
Due to the Kintigh investigation, it has been discovered that at least two of the “independent” reviewers have conflicts of interest: Dr. Lauren Chan and Dr. Howard Snell—they wrote the foundational studies for the proposal. Is it likely that someone who wrote the study could review the rule and question the accuracy of his or her own work? We can assume that the complimentary reviews were from Chan and Snell.
The unattributed peer reviews of the ESA listing proposal provided online have devastating criticisms from Texas A & M University, questioning the sampling process and finding many unwarranted conclusions. However, nowhere are these criticisms addressed.
In researching the process, it was discovered that for ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) doesn’t go through what the science community would call “peer review.” They have an “internal peer review”—FWS checks over FWS’s own work. The agency does not disclose the identity of the report writer or the “peer reviewers.”
We, as citizens, also do not know who wrote the proposed rule—though investigation indicates that it was written by FWS staffer Debra Hill—meaning she has no accountability. Additionally, her husband is the author of some of the research—which brings into question her ability to be independent.
Whoever wrote the proposed rule clearly wanted the lizard listed as the document is filled with contradiction and speculation—but it was issued anyway. In the proposed listing it states: “We do not know the magnitude or imminence of the direct or indirect impacts of competition and climate change on the status of the species at this time. However, we consider exposure to oil and gas pollutants to be a threat to the species throughout its range, both now and continuing into the foreseeable future.” Wait, you, the unknown author, are willing to destroy the regional economy based on “we do not know” and “we consider”? In other cases, the word “likely” is used to describe a population reduction. Elsewhere it is stated that the species is “persisting.” “Could,” “can,” “we believe”…
One example of the contradictions within the listing rule is in reference to the pipelines found in the habitat area and utilized in oil and gas activities. The concluding comments of the pipeline section say that pipelines are a “significant threat,” but earlier it states: “It is not known how dunes sagebrush lizards utilize pipelines.” Additionally, one of the studies the rule is based on indicates that the lizards like pipelines and service roads: “…pipeline cuts and sand roads serve as preferred habitat…”
The report being released on Monday has these comments in the closing: “The committee was surprised by the contradictions the data presented. There is a clear lack of an unequivocal sense about the actual range of the species and habitats preferred. There is surprising information that anthropogenic activities may well enhance habitat preferred by the species. Other examples of inadequate reporting or outright error can be found in the body of the committee report.”
How would you feel if your family lost the farm because the needed water was diverted to save the smelt, or your livelihood was taken away because of the spotted owl, and you discovered that, like the dunes sagebrush lizard, the ESA listing was based on secrecy, speculation, and contradiction? It is imperative that the process be brought out into the open.
As the climategate scandal exposed the secrecy, speculation, and contradiction in the manmade climate change research that precluded opposing viewpoints from being considered, the Kintigh investigation should change the entire ESA process from now on.
In short, the proposed rule plays on fear, uncertainty, and doubt and fails to scientifically show that the lizard is endangered or is negatively impacted by human activity
>>>>>>the lizards like pipelines and service roads: “…pipeline cuts and sand roads serve as preferred habitat…
don’tcha love it when the animals like high tech as much as most humans?
We can talk about cutting back agencies all we want, but until we change the ESA, Clean Water and Clean Air acts to fix these deficiencies, we’re spitting in the wind.
Liberals see beautiful land and rather than saving to buy it - or putting a purchase to a vote ... they steal the land with some bogus 'endangered' animal...
Bookmark for later read.
Environmental groups are raping the American taxpayer as they insist on imposing their view of the new world order on the rest of us. The wolves have been breaking the back of western ranchers, let’s hope this finally breaks the ESA law. A mouse was restrored to endangered species protection in wheat fields in Wyoming, they are also protected in Colorado....WHY?
Ending food and energy production is a big part of the environmental movement and we need to figure out why, in the meantime take the ESA tool away.
I just found out that the Iowa flooding was caused by the corps of engineers being told to hold the water behind the dams (when they should have released it earlier and more slowly) in order for some sturgeon to finish spawning. So, we destroyed millions of acres of crops & farmland & miles of highways so a fish could breed.
This is what you get when you view humans as just another animal on this planet.
Remember all of the anti-pipeline angst that accompanied the building of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline? How it was going to devastate the caribou herds? Do you also remember studies being done several years later that discovered that the environmental modifications caused by the pipeline actually were beneficial to the caribou herds? Notice that we haven't heard anything more about the pipeline's impact on the wildlife since then.
Isn't it a horrible event when reality and honest science intrudes on political agendas?
Food and energy production benefits humans.
Leftists, following their satanic ideology, hate humans.
I live a couple town over now, and you know what? I've got that rare salamander in my backyard -- but I keep my mouth shut about it.
I live on 12 acres and I mow about half of it. I also mow "paths" through some of the rough area. I notice that the deer, who live here too, prefer to walk and run on my paths, rather than slam their way through the underbrush. I see other wildlife on the paths too.
I even see evidence that wild turkey take advantage of the divots I make with the Zero Turn mower. They enlarge them and use them to take dust baths. I haven't seen it, but I've found stray turkey feathers in the dents.
Down her, in the interior of the Swamp of Socialism, A.K.A. The everglades, Dr. Rich and I both sent data to the department of the Inferior regarding vehicle impact. The fact is that vehicle trails have a minor net positive impact. When a vehicle crushes vegetation, the emergent vegetation which the plant produces has from four to seven times the nutrient content.
Herbivores will travel for considerable distances to feed on such emergent vegetation. Having informed the Armed & Rangerous about the minor net positive impact of vehicles, they promptly outlawed most vehicles.
Once the endangered lizard was found he should have sold it to them and made sure THEY were stuck with useless land
Environment, politics, sex, marriage, birth control, abortion, art, movies, novels, education, ... we have been practiced upon.
Should we not have a clue by now? Anything said by anyone about how we should change to make things better is most likely wrong. And the one saying it is either an useful idiot or is practicing upon us.
That is their stated policy and procedure.
My thoughts exactly.
In the case of the sagebrush lizard. The energy industry has helped Texas maintain a fair economy and lower unemployment rates than many other states.
Obama can't have that.
I suspect the EPA will really push hard now that Perry has thrown his hat in the Presidential ring.
Environmentalism is the religion of the left. It needs to be declared as such and the “separation clause” enforced prohibiting them from any governmental involvement.
You don't know why?? Simple. We'll never achieve the desired third world status with full bellies and full gas tanks.
Always remember, at least 95% of what goes on in Wash DC is predicated on turning the USA into a third world country:
Just recently:
Raising the debt limit with NO (for all practical purposes) spending cuts.
The S&P downgrade.
Just two more steps along the way to third world utopia.
do
I agree. However, we have far too many fat-cats in government for them all to get to be a Castro or Mugabe. Even if I’m burning my fence palings to boil kudzu soup, I’ll enjoy watching my “betters” eat each other.
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.