Let them thrive

Our position: Congress shouldn't weaken protections for endangered species.

October 19, 2005

In the more than three decades since Congress passed the Endangered Species
Act, the law has saved hundreds of species from extinction. It's unlikely
that the bald eagle, grizzly bear, manatee and Florida panther would have
survived without the law.

But the House, succumbing to pressure from property-rights hardliners,
recently endorsed a plan that would gut the law. It would undo critical
wildlife protections and establish an unlimited new entitlement for
developers whose plans are thwarted by the presence of endangered species.
The House plan, and not the law, is what's worthy of extinction.

Critics of the Endangered Species Act argue that it has burdened landowners
with regulations and spawned lawsuits while failing to fulfill its purpose.
Only 10 of some 1,300 species listed as endangered under the law have
recovered, the critics point out.

But biologists say that most of the endangered species have been on the list
for less than half the time needed to recover. Meanwhile, many of the
species have been saved from extinction, and many are on the road to
recovery. Most of the lawsuits have stemmed from the government being too
timid, rather than too aggressive, in carrying out the law.

Sponsored by California Republican Richard Pombo -- the same lawmaker who
has been leading the charge to open the waters off Florida's coast to oil
rigs -- the House plan would strike at the heart of the Endangered Species
Act. Among several objectionable provisions, it would replace the system of
designating and protecting critical habitat for endangered species with
weaker "recovery plans." It would open that planning process to political
interference. It would put new bureaucratic obstacles, including unrealistic
time limits, in the way of agencies trying to preserve species.

The House plan also would entitle developers to compensation for lost
profits at taxpayers' expense if their proposals are rejected for the harm
they would do to endangered species -- essentially paying developers for
complying with the law. And it would hinder the federal government's ability
to restrict pesticide use, even though such restrictions have been essential
in the recovery of some species.

Like other laws that were passed decades ago, the Endangered Species Act
could benefit from some improvements. More incentives to encourage
landowners to take steps to protect endangered species would be helpful --
some carrots to go along with the sticks of government regulations. So would
more resources for federal agencies so they can carry out their
responsibilities under the law.

But there's a world of difference between improving the Endangered Species
Act and eviscerating it. If the Senate can't come up with a significantly
better plan than the House, lawmakers would be better to leave the law
alone.

Fair Use Disclaimer

The Pelican Island Audubon Society web site, www.pelicanislandaudubon.org, is a nonprofit, noncommercial web site that, at times, may contain Copyrighted material that have not always been specifically authorized by the Copyright owner. The Society makes such material available in its efforts to advance the understanding of issues related to Florida’s natural environment in hopes of helping to find solutions for those problems. It believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such Copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Persons wishing to use Copyrighted material from this site for purposes of their own that go beyond “fair use” must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.

All articles are copyrighted by the respective newspapers.