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 environmental groups have been known to sell land to the government when it suits them. They are rarely *stuck*. If they can’t find a buyer, they lease it to select groups for recreational use that follows their strict guidelines....for a price. I have also read of Green groups allowing drilling on their *conserved* lands.
There are also countless clueless childless liberals who will their property to Nature Conservancy.
The way to protect ‘endangered’ species is to cross-breed them with related species, not to try to control the environment.
We can’t control the weather, much less the climate and certainly not the environment.
The Outer Banks of North Carolina (OBX) is going through the same thing, closing ORV in order to “save” a bird that is not endangered. Businesses are going under, people are not allowed to fish at the “Cape Point” during nesting times and generations of traditions are going under. The NPS has authorized or killed animlas themsilves in the thousands, in order to keep the predators away from the eggs on the beach. The Audobon and D.O.W. want NO HUMAN activity on the OBX.
Some animals are more equal than others...
Having moved out of the Keys almost a year ago, after 35 years there, I can concur that enviros have run amok with their endangered species listings there. Key Largo has the Key Largo Wood Rat, the Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly and probably 1/2 dozen more that don’t come to mind right now. I lived in the Lower Keys where we had the Key Deer, Keys Marsh Rabbit and many more land based animals. They are now ,moving into the waters surrounding the Keys with endangered Elkhorn and Staghorn corals. They won’t stop until development is stopped and then of course, reversed. even if your land does not have an endangered critter on it, they will now claim it’s potential habitat for said critter, i.e. if they were to drop a marsh bunny off on your property and it survived, well, there you go, prime bunny habitat.
One interchange that they claimed was going to endanger some sort of bug, was actually completely developed and was 100% concrete and asphalt on all four corners.
We just wanted a cloverleaf there.
Also, we are at present in stage 2 water restrictions because of something called a blind salamander. Imagine a city of over 1 million people being held hostage by a lizard.
The EPA, brought to us by the same Richard Nixon the left vilify, has been an incredibly effective tool for them to ply their criminal activity.
Without a competing private management system (such as mine), this will never get any better, as the conflicts of interest inherent to political control of natural resources will never endure any check that might mitigate either agency, university, or activist behavior.
I should dump some of these lizards on the property that the former township “Boss Hogg” wants to develop...that’ll get even with the FIB for all the grief he’s caused my family...
A growing number of them are also learning how to use the land conservancy scam to become rich and acquire huge tracts of land that they can live on as managers while restricting entry to the general public.
99.9% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct.
We hunted deer in Alberta Canada a few years ago. the first place our guide took us was a remote spot on the Canadian Pipeline. The deer loved it because there were no trees and the grass grew more lush in the sunlight.
The environmentalists "reintroduced" the lynx in Colorado (questionable that it ever ranged here), then proceeded to block off huge areas by finding lynx hair in fences and on rubbing trees, and using it to claim critical habitat. Somebody checked the DNA of the hair against a museum sample, and lo and behold, it was all the same DNA ! The hair on the rubbing posts had been planted, by the very people who were conducting the studies, and making the habitat decisions.
This has also happened with endangered plants ( people have been seen transplanting them), and of course when you get down to the insect level, it's pretty easy to plant populations wherever you need one.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar, rampant level of fraud in the "science".
PS the reintroduced lynx all tried to go back to Canada from whence they were removed. They didn't like Colorado, nor did they appreciate being relocated from their homes and families.
Twenty years ago I lived in and also had an investment lot in a tract home development near Navarre, in the Florida Panhandle. The real estate agents called the surrounding swamp “Greenbrakes” (cough). When we dug a hole for the mailbox, we hit water at two feet.
At that time, “wetland” was defined as a place where your footstep filled with water after X amount of minutes. Some years later it was expanded to include right AFTER a rainstorm. I expected the next step would be DURING and bailed out.
The universe isn’t the only thing constantly expanding.
Won’t kudzu make gravy?
So rather than take the common-sense approach of shipping milkweed seed packets to each school, and having kids plant milkweed in their back yards for butterflies (which would take milkweed off the endangered species list real fast), they have to kill the butterflies.
Everyone complains about the EPA but the FWS is the worst of the alphabet environazi agencies. They own more land than the NPS (think of the local taxes that are missed because of that one). Their hunting and fishing policies are a joke as are their jackbooted park rangers. I tried attending one of their deer hunts one time - the regulations kept anyone that was serious about hunting from even applying for the hunt- unbelievable.
A panther or turtle could walk across it. Some useless sub-species of some obscure plant might grow. A scrub jay may fly athrough it. There may be some type of tree that some bird could possibly use to build a nest.
I'm not kidding about this one - puddles could be used by sea-monkey type of organisms. We, after all, must protect even these low forms of life.
There is nearly no private property outside of urban areas where they can't exploit some type of "endangered" species concept. I and smany others here in Florida (two of whom I pinged) personally witnessed where good people are completely f***ed-over by their government and its scumbag cronies. As we speak, entire communities and business sectors (farming, logging, construction, mining etc.) are being decimated because of some type of fish, reptile or plant.
It's completely immoral and utterly insane, but unfortunately, it's modern America.
It is past time for opponents of some of the crazy endangered species rules to organize independent scientific peer review groups to expose this systematic fraud.
Rallies do no good. We must hold the bureaucrats accountable through scientific reveiw.
Too bad the MSM can’t do a special on the percentage of land “save for endangered species” that’s ugly. My guess - especially after reading comments on this thread - is “not much”. Thanks for your comments.
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.