Crowdog
06-07-2005, 07:50 AM
http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/111806328575401.html
Monday, June 6, 2005
ANOTHER VIEW: The danger of ESA reform
Politicians and bureaucrats excel at the art of ju-jitsu; they can flip an argument upside down and turn an opponent's strength against him. The fact that a federal program has failed to produce results rarely succeeds as an argument for shutting it down or reforming it, as the flourishing of failed federal programs demonstrates. The typical Washington rebuttal to such arguments is that the program at issue has "failed" for lack of adequate funding and regulatory reach — thus, the debate becomes an opportunity to expand, rather than kill, the program.
That's why we urge caution on those on Capitol Hill backing a much-needed overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. Hanging their arguments against ESA on its ineffectiveness at recovering species could easily be turned into an argument for strengthening this ill-conceived law, rather than weakening it. Unless they have a better paradigm to put forward, reformers could easily hand their opponents an argument that will be used against them.
Last week, the majority (Republican) staff of the House Resource Committee released a report that purports to document the law's failure to bring species back from the brink. Among its highlights: that only 10 of roughly 1,300 federally protected plants and animals have recovered enough to be removed from the list; that most listed species have met few of the recovery goals identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; that the recovery status of 60 percent of listed species is either "uncertain" or "declining," while 30 percent of species are stable and 6 percent are improving.
Based on these facts, "No reasonable individual can conclude that the ESA is sustainable in its current form," said Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, a Republican from California who has been a leading voice favoring reform. But who said reason prevails in this or any other argument concerning environmental policy? Emotion, not reason, drives most of these debates.
The law's dismal record of recovering species must be one of many arguments soldiered in any challenge. Where the law also is vulnerable is on its devastating impacts on private property owners, the absurdity of setting aside "critical habitat" for animals that aren't there, and its inability to establish rational priorities or trade-offs in a world of limited resources.
The shoddiness of the science underpinning the law demands particular attention, as we know well, given our experience with the creature formerly known as the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. The softness of the science also is underscored by the discovery in the past month of three species long ago listed as extinct. That may be good news for the species involved, but it deepens doubts about the certainty of what we think we know about endangered species, and underlines the need to shore up the science behind these listings.
Reforming this law — the real "third rail" of American politics — won't be easy. But reformers should steer clear of arguments that could inadvertently be turned around in a way that makes the ESA even more rigid, even more Draconian, even more dangerous to private property and rational land use decisions than it already is.
Colorado Springs Gazette
Monday, June 6, 2005
ANOTHER VIEW: The danger of ESA reform
Politicians and bureaucrats excel at the art of ju-jitsu; they can flip an argument upside down and turn an opponent's strength against him. The fact that a federal program has failed to produce results rarely succeeds as an argument for shutting it down or reforming it, as the flourishing of failed federal programs demonstrates. The typical Washington rebuttal to such arguments is that the program at issue has "failed" for lack of adequate funding and regulatory reach — thus, the debate becomes an opportunity to expand, rather than kill, the program.
That's why we urge caution on those on Capitol Hill backing a much-needed overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. Hanging their arguments against ESA on its ineffectiveness at recovering species could easily be turned into an argument for strengthening this ill-conceived law, rather than weakening it. Unless they have a better paradigm to put forward, reformers could easily hand their opponents an argument that will be used against them.
Last week, the majority (Republican) staff of the House Resource Committee released a report that purports to document the law's failure to bring species back from the brink. Among its highlights: that only 10 of roughly 1,300 federally protected plants and animals have recovered enough to be removed from the list; that most listed species have met few of the recovery goals identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; that the recovery status of 60 percent of listed species is either "uncertain" or "declining," while 30 percent of species are stable and 6 percent are improving.
Based on these facts, "No reasonable individual can conclude that the ESA is sustainable in its current form," said Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, a Republican from California who has been a leading voice favoring reform. But who said reason prevails in this or any other argument concerning environmental policy? Emotion, not reason, drives most of these debates.
The law's dismal record of recovering species must be one of many arguments soldiered in any challenge. Where the law also is vulnerable is on its devastating impacts on private property owners, the absurdity of setting aside "critical habitat" for animals that aren't there, and its inability to establish rational priorities or trade-offs in a world of limited resources.
The shoddiness of the science underpinning the law demands particular attention, as we know well, given our experience with the creature formerly known as the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. The softness of the science also is underscored by the discovery in the past month of three species long ago listed as extinct. That may be good news for the species involved, but it deepens doubts about the certainty of what we think we know about endangered species, and underlines the need to shore up the science behind these listings.
Reforming this law — the real "third rail" of American politics — won't be easy. But reformers should steer clear of arguments that could inadvertently be turned around in a way that makes the ESA even more rigid, even more Draconian, even more dangerous to private property and rational land use decisions than it already is.
Colorado Springs Gazette