Bill Would Require Scientific Proof for Applying Endangered Species Act

Talon News ^ | 07/01/03 | Jimmy Moore

[bedolido]

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Rep. C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) has proposed a bill that would require scientific proof that land should be restricted before the Endangered Species Act can be applied to public land.

This bill, called the Scientifically Identifying the Need for Critical Habitat (SINCH) Act, or H.R. 2602, would let the secretary of Interior decide whether the habitat that holds these limited species is threatened or endangered. Under the Endangered Species Act, a critical habitat includes any area where an endangered species lives as well as any territory that it decides to migrate to in order to repopulate.

The federal government is required to talk to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's fisheries office before anything can be done within the confines of a designated critical habitat in order to protect the wildlife from harm.

Additionally, government agencies must also consult with species protection regulators before anything can be done, regardless of whether an area has been designated a restricted critical habitat or not.

The Fish and Wildlife Service will experience a budget shortfall this year because of court-mandated deadlines brought on by environmentalist lawsuits that have created critical habitat areas for 32 new species so far this year. The agency expects it will need $120 to $150 million to manage any additional critical habitat listings that will become available this year.

There are currently 31 lawsuits in the courts over critical habitat designations with another 36 on the verge of suing. The Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of complying with 35 different court orders regarding critical habitat designations.

"Give the people who live here and the local leaders responsible for complying with the law some credit for common sense and good intentions," Otter said in support of his bill. "And if you're going to throw a blanket over big chunks of our land, you better make sure you have the solid evidence to back it up."

Otter says the Interior secretary can determine whether a critical habitat designation is needed or not. He added that sound science combined with cooberating evidence should be used when labeling these areas as well as the species that live there.

Copyright © 2003 Talon News -- All rights reserved.

[MJY1288]

Some good news for a change

[StriperSniper]

a bill that would require scientific proof that land should be restricted before the Endangered Species Act can be applied to public land.

What about private land?

Is this just government protecting itself?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[liberallarry]

Rep. C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) has proposed a bill that would require scientific proof that land should be restricted before the Endangered Species Act can be applied to public land.... This bill...would let the secretary of Interior decide whether the habitat that holds these limited species is threatened or endangered.

The secretary of the Interior, always a great scientist. You can bank on it. What bullshit.

[Tacis]

Scientific proof? What's wrong with the old tried and true standby. In the past, all that has been needed is three or more scruffy and unwashed sensitive environmentalists (and, recreational ganja users) to provide really, really sincere testimony. Often, this testimony was enforced by or more celebrities who spoke dramatically and ensured that the fact that the construction that would destroy the habitat in question woulld block the ocean view from the servants' quarters had nothing to do with her testimony. Why, all of a sudden after all these years, do we need scientific proof?

[Amelia]

Why, all of a sudden after all these years, do we need scientific proof?

:-D

[Tony Niar Brain]

This is a bit concerning for me. In the jargon of the science world, 'proof' is not an absolute term. It is not like mathematics where a proof of a statement can be established once and forever. Proof in a scientific sense is more like a process - a process that takes time, often in quantities measured in years - that is never truly finished.

My worry is that if there is a species that is in real danger, this bill and it's call for proof might cause a intolerable delay in action. After all, they're will always be skeptics. Abuses of the current laws aside, I'm worried that this bill might be causing new problems instead of just fixing the old.

[sauropod]

Comments?

[sauropod]

Comments?

[justshe]

Thanks for posting this information.

I hope this bill gets some traction. It is desperately needed....if only to raise the debate on the ESA. If you take the USF&W situation, and multiply the court mandated and Congressionally mandated rules, by which these agencies must work under (USFS, BLM, Army Corp of Engineers) and add in the FOIA that is being exploited by many of the greenie organizations (tying up valuable resources)......you begin to see where a LOT of our taxpayer dollars are going.

I often use the example that even if a hole needs to be dug in order to put in a fence post on national lands, it requires a cultural analysis (for artifacts). It is beyond STUPID!!!!

Many often turn around and point the finger at the men and women who work for these agencies as being stupid, lazy, ineffectual, and unresponsive. But, imo, MUCH of the blame goes to those who try to tie these agencies up in bureaucratic red tape...and the liberally packed courts.

[Dead Corpse]

Is anyone else a tad bit upset that there seems to have been NO previous requirement for this?

[Jeff Head]

Butch Otter is my congressman. I have written him several times and he is much more conservative and oritented towards the constitution than most congresscritters.

Even though he is trying to do a good thing here and improve the ESA, he is trying to improve something that IMHO is universally corrupt and has already sunsetted.

There is but one answer to the ESA, END IT! and end all of the corrupt enviro-jihadist and NGO lobbying that has built up around it. It and the mechansims that have built up around it was the great enabler for the unbelievable situation in:

Klamath Falls in 2001

... which is ongoing to this day.

Unfortunately that huge mechanism is precisely why even some good congressmen balk at it...too much money involved, too many "jobs" (that's a laugh) surrounding it and they don;t want the political baggage of double tapping the thing.

Well, that's exactly what is required and I pray someone up there will have the cajones to not only ropose it, but to push it through with a vengance.

Jeff

[Jeff Head]

See my post number 13...the "ropose" towards the end should be "propose". Sorry for the typo...confounded fumble-fingers.

[yoe]

"Give the people who live here and the local leaders responsible for complying with the law some credit for common sense and good intentions," Otter said in support of his bill. "And if you're going to throw a blanket over big chunks of our land, you better make sure you have the solid evidence to back it up."

Hoo-Rah and Amen!

Send a fax or note to Rep. C. L. "Butch" Otter and thank him for this long overdue step in the right direction!

610 W Hubbard
Ste 206
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Phone Number: 208-667-0127
Fax Number: 202-667-0310
or go to http://www.house.gov/otter/email.htm
and fill in the message for his e-mail.

Give this man your support where ever you live - let him hear from you.

[Carry_Okie]

You will recall that my big concern with "sound science" is who gets to control what that means. With government as powerful as it is in universities, that does not bode well for good stewardship. Further, the response time in legitimate cases of emergency is too slow with a system that is that bureaucratic. It could put landowners under a cloud of doubt for decades.

I think we do need habitat protection in this country, but we need to gradually privatize it so that the landowner has a stake in caring for habitat. We will get better work for less.

If you want, I'll repost that article of mine that Henry Lamb ran in eco-logic.

[DannyTN]

It seems to me like restricting land for protection of endangered species is taking land for public use. Does the government compensate land owners for the restrictions? If not they should.

[CyberSpartacus]

If the species is so fragile that it needs us to protect it. It will go extinct anyway, we are just delaying the inevitable.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environmrnt ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!