<font color="yellow">Since most of our trails are lost to non-endangered "endangered spieces", this might just piss some of you off as much as it does me <IMG SRC="smilies/pissed.gif" border="0">... note that every reference for the story is from the CBD and that they had to sue Bush to get the 2 new "endangered species" listed... Note the "Massive Public Oppisition", which came from the gags not the Public... <IMG SRC="smilies/pissed.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/pissed.gif" border="0"></font c>


BUSH ENDANGERED SPECIES ATTACK UNANIMOUSLY
REJECTED BY HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE

BUT DON’T DECLARE TOTAL VICTORY YET-
HIS ANEMIC ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTING BUDGET
WILL HAMSTRING FEDERAL PROTECTION EFFORTS

On June 7, 2001, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on
Interior Appropriations unanimously rejected Bush’s proposal to
gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing process. This was
Bush’s first ESA policy proposal. Its defeat in the Republican
dominated House of Representatives demonstrates that his extreme
right-wing agenda is too much for even conservatives to stomach.

Bush had sought to suspend ESA deadlines to protect imperiled
species, give total discretion over whether to list species to
Secretary of Interior Gale Norton, and exempt the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service from having to obey court orders to protect
imperiled plants and animals. In response to massive public
opposition, Congress rejected the request.

Bush's budget to list endangered species - $8.47 million - was
approved, however, without an increase. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service has determined that it needs $120 million. Bush's request
is designed to create another Endangered Species Act listing
crisis next year when the money runs out. And it will run out very
quickly.

George Bush has listed only two species under the ESA since being
appointed president. Bill Clinton listed 41 during the same time
period. Both Bush listings were driven by petitions and suits by the
Center for Biological Diversity.

For more information on Bush’s fail attack on the ESA and what
you can do to save the Endangered Species Act budget, check out
the Center’s new ESA moratorium web page:
<www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/activist/ESA/bush-esa.html>

“Safeguarding Citizen Rights Under the Endangered Species Act”:
new report by the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of
Wildlife, and the Endangered Species Coalition
<www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/activist/ESA/bush-esa.html>

250 scientists ask Congress to reject Bush extinction rider, increase
endangered species budget
<www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/activist/ESA/bush-esa.html>

300 environmental groups ask Congress to reject Bush extinction
rider, increase endangered species budget
<www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/activist/ESA/bush-esa.html>

George Bush: he’s just a good ol’ boy
<www.bushcartoon.com/index2.html>


Kierán Suckling ksuckling@biologicaldiversity.org
Executive Director 520.623.5252 phone
Center for Biological Diversity 520.623.9797 fax
<www.biologicaldiversity.org> POB 710, Tucson, AZ 85702-0710

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Yellowsub1962 ]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200106\NAT2001 0607a.html>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200106\NAT2001 0607a.html
>
>
>Environmentalists Bash Bush Budget, Drain Resources
>By Pat Taylor
>CNSNews.com Correspondent
>June 07, 2001
>
>(CNSNews.com) - Professional environmental activist organizations
>are mounting a full-scale attack on a clause in President George
>Bush's proposed budget that they claim will "gut" the Endangered
>Species Act and hinder their efforts to protect imperiled species.
>
>But a long-time employee and official spokesman for the U.S. Fish
>and Wildlife Service (FWS), the agency that has primary
>responsibility for implementing the ESA, says the claims - and the
>resulting media coverage of the issue - could not be further from
>the truth.
>
>Others say the real reason for the activists' concern is the
>possibility the budget proposal could restrict the flow of American
>taxpayers' dollars, many of which actually pay lawyers for groups
>who successfully sue to have land use restricted by the federal
>government.
>
>The bill that includes the ESA budget proposal faces its first test
>Thursday, when it is scheduled for mark-up by a House Appropriations
>subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Joe Skeen (R-N.M.).
>
>Full Court Press
>
>In a flurry of press releases and letters to Congress, environmental
>activists are blasting Bush, claiming he is "anti-ESA."
>
>In a 52-page report released last week, two groups - the Center for
>Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife - claim Bush's budget
>proposal would "gut" the ESA, "drastically restrict" citizens'
>rights to protect imperiled species, and result in "a death warrant
>for countless species."
>
>But according to FWS spokesman Hugh Vickery, "the idea that Bush's
>budget proposal is anti-ESA is 180 degrees wrong." In reality, he
>said, the proposal would allow the agency to respond to citizen
>petitions and protect greater numbers of endangered species.
>
>A 10-year FWS employee with no apparent political axe to grind,
>Vickery said Bush's budget proposal simply responds to a
>long-standing request of the agency to find a way to allow it to do
>the job it was intended to do.
>
>"Citizen" Lawsuits
>
>At issue is a provision of the ESA that allows "citizens" to sue the
>government if they feel the FWS is not acting correctly or quickly
>enough in protecting an endangered species.
>
>In practice, however, ordinary citizens rarely bring such lawsuits.
>
>Instead, the vast majority are filed by professional activist
>organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders
>of Wildlife, and Earthjustice - formerly the Sierra Club Legal
>Defense Fund.
>
>These groups are considered "professional" in that their staff
>consists primarily of full-time, well trained, paid activists.
>
>According to Vickery, most of these lawsuits do not demand that new
>species be added to the endangered list.
>
>Instead, they demand that areas of "critical" habitat - areas that
>must be protected from human activity in order for the species to
>survive - be mapped out and designated for species that have already
>been declared endangered.
>
>Moreover, he said, most of the suits hinge not on the merits of how
>to protect a species, but on technicalities stemming from the fact
>that the FWS is unable to meet stringent timetables established by
>the ESA.
>
>The ESA dictates that once a species has been declared "endangered"
>or "threatened," the FWS must map out and designate some kind of
>critical habitat for the species.
>
>The act sets specific timetables and deadlines for each step of the
>complicated process, which includes time-consuming and expensive
>biological field surveys.
>
>But the FWS, Vickery said, has always felt that adding new species
>to the endangered list is much more important than designating
>critical habitat for them. "We believe designating habitat does not
>necessarily add any conservation value," said Vickery.
>
>"Once a species is listed, it has the full protection of all the
>other provisions of the ESA."
>
>According to Vickery, the agency prefers to work with local people
>to develop species conservation and recovery plans, which he said
>are more cost-effective and beneficial than habitat designation,
>rather than working against people in adversarial relationships
>resulting from legal action.
>
>But because the agency must expend time and resources responding to
>these lawsuits, it is unable to list and protect endangered species
>as well as it could, Vickery said.
>
>Land Trumps Animals, Plants
>
>Vickery said the agency has already been ordered to complete 100
>critical habitat proposals or designations by Oct. 1 of this year,
>and "hundreds and hundreds more" in the years to come.
>
>Still pending are 31 lawsuits demanding habitat designation for 356
>species. By contrast, 21 pending lawsuits deal with actually adding
>only 28 species to the endangered list.
>
>Vickery likened the FWS to medics performing triage during a medical
>emergency. "The lawsuits are forcing us to deal with broken arms
>rather than heart attacks," he said.
>
>Moreover, being forced to meet court-ordered deadlines for one
>species means the FWS will probably miss the deadlines for another
>species, setting the agency up for another lawsuit in a vicious
>circle.
>
>Draining Resources
>
>Vickery said that because of the lawsuits, the FWS has already spent
>this fiscal year's entire budget for listing endangered species -
>$6.4 million, which was set under the Clinton administration - and
>there are still four months remaining in the fiscal year.
>
>Bush's funding proposal for the Department of the Interior - which
>includes the FWS - has proposed increasing that budget by $2 million
>to $8.4 million.
>
>But in the words of the funding proposal, those funds could be used
>"notwithstanding the specific time frames and deadlines" of the ESA,
>for only two purposes: complying with court orders or settlements
>already in effect, or "undertaking such other actions as determined
>by the secretary to be consistent with the priorities established by
>a listing priority system."
>
>While acknowledging that those words can be very confusing, Vickery
>said they have been greatly misinterpreted by the activists and the
>press, resulting in false accusations that Bush wants to impose a
>moratorium on lawsuits or on adding species to the endangered list.
>
>"There is no moratorium on anything," said Vickery. Organizations
>could still file their lawsuits.
>
>But since most of the suits hinge on time frames and deadlines
>imposed by the ESA, the Bush funding proposal would simply remove
>the time limit on designating habitat for low-priority species for
>one year and allow the FWS to reset its priorities.
>
>Those priorities, he said, would be set with public input, not
>behind closed doors by Secretary of Interior Gale Norton, as alleged
>by the activists.
>
>With a new set of priorities, he said, the agency could quickly add
>to the endangered list the 37 pending species that the activists are
>claiming would become extinct if Bush's budget proposal is approved.
>
>In addition, he said, the agency could propose 12 new, high-priority listings.
>
>Vickery said Bush's budget proposal would also allow the FWS to
>respond to citizen petitions to add an additional 25 species to the
>list during the next fiscal year.
>
>The activists claim that without their lawsuits, more than half of
>the 1,244 currently protected species would not have been listed as
>endangered or threatened.
>
>But Vickery said their claims are inflated. He said they are taking
>credit for many listings that the FWS was already working on, and
>all they did was sue to speed up the process.
>
>Milking a Government Cash Cow
>
>If listing new species is so much more important than designating
>critical habitat for those already listed, why are the activist
>organizations pushing so hard to force the FWS to designate critical
>habitat?
>
>"Because they know they can win the lawsuits. They know we cannot
>meet the deadlines. And they obviously have a different view of the
>conservation value of habitat," said Vickery.
>
>Others are less diplomatic. Many people, especially those in the
>country's Western states, believe the activists are not really
>interested in protecting endangered species, but are deliberately
>misusing the ESA in their zeal to promote their anti-property
>rights, anti-growth, anti-military agenda at American taxpayers'
>expense.
>
>Western states include millions of acres of land and water that have
>been put off limits or restricted for human activity because of
>government mandates.
>
>Vickery said FWS has not calculated how many millions of acres have
>been designated as critical habitat throughout the country.
>The Center for Biological Diversity boasts that since 1995 it has
>succeeded in limiting human activity on almost 40 million acres -
>almost 6 million in California alone.
>
>Every time a professional activist organization wins a lawsuit,
>which Vickery pointed out was most of the time, the U.S. Treasury
>pays its legal fees.
>
>During the 1990s, the U.S. Justice Department reportedly paid the
>various groups $31.6 million in legal fees. The average payment was
>more than $70,000.
>
>One settlement netted the Sierra Club and other plaintiffs more than
>$3.5 million. Their lawyers charge as much as $350 per hour.
>
>According to Vickery, the FWS is coping with approximately 80
>lawsuits that have been settled in recent years. At $70,000 per
>suit, the activist organizations would have reaped $5.6 million of
>taxpayer money just from those lawsuits.
>
>That's almost as much as this year's $6.4 million FWS budget for
>listing endangered species and designating critical habitat.
>And that does not count the money paid to the government's attorneys
>to defend the lawsuits.
>
>Attempts to reach Justice Department officials to find out how much
>has been spent this year or proposed in next year's budget to pay
>for the environmental activist organizations' lawsuits were
>unsuccessful.
>
>Pat Taylor can be contacted at
><maimailto:Pxtaylor@hotmail.com>pxtaylor@hotmail.com.