Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Scientists Protest New Reading of Endangered Species Act
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - More than three dozen scientists have signed a letter to protest a new Bush administration interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, saying it jeopardizes animals such as wolves and grizzly bears.
The new reading of the law proposed by Interior Department Solicitor David Bernhardt would enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect animals and plants only where they are battling for survival. The agency wouldn't have to protect them where they're in good shape.
The proposed changes would "have real and profoundly detrimental impacts on the conservation of many species and the habitat upon which they depend," said the letter, signed by 38 prominent wildlife biologists and environmental ethics specialists.
It was being sent this week to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and leaders of congressional committees that oversee the department.
The scientists wrote that the proposal would have allowed the bald eagle to become extinct in the lower 48 states.
The new policy would give the department an excuse to avoid adding new species to the list, increasing the likelihood of extinctions, said Michael Nelson, an environmental ethicist at Michigan State University.
Nelson and John Vucetich, a wildlife biologist at Michigan Technological University, circulated the letter.
Interior spokesman Hugh Vickery said senior career biologists who run the program are supportive of the proposal and believe it will enable them to "focus their limited resources on areas where species are truly threatened or endangered."
Vickery said it was unclear how the revised policy would affect particular species but accused the critics of exaggerating. He dismissed as "complete nonsense" the suggestion it would have doomed the bald eagle everywhere but Alaska if it had been in effect decades ago.
Bernhardt's legal analysis was released in mid-March. He said the department needed to reconsider its definition of "endangered" because federal judges had rejected its previous reading of the law in eight of 10 cases since 2000.
Those rulings came after environmentalist groups sued the wildlife service for refusing to add species such as the flat-tailed horned lizard and Florida black bear to the endangered list.
The debate centers on a provision in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requiring the government to list any plant or animal "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Bernhardt disagreed with court rulings that "range" includes areas where species lived previously but are gone because of habitat loss or other reasons. What matters, he said, is whether they're declining in areas they now occupy.
Bernhardt's definition of "range" would allow the department to settle for keeping remnants of a species intact somewhere, but wouldn't have to return them where people drove them out, Vucetich said.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press
8 Comments so far
Show AllImpeach Bu$h and save a few species for a few more years.
Email the politicians that are supposed to be serving you and request impeachment of both bush and cheney!!! We have to remove them before they destroy OUR America.
We have to be ashamed when looking back at history. How late in our time-line did we manage to introduce 'protection' laws, for children, for animals or areas of our environment, which in itself is a sign of our destructive and abusive presence... and most of us are watching now absolutely astonished to see one by one of these laws abolished, watered down or ignored, squeezed so long until they match our current mind set... we lost too much already.
When will we grow up and learn not to do, what we are able and capable of doing.
At the rate we are going the endangered species will be gone whether they are listed or not. There will be no habitat. Growth and sprawl will get them all.
Realizing the horror show this Earth has become under the domination of clever, selfish and power-hungry humans, it would save the Cosmic body from their cancerous appetite if life on this planet went extinct. Indeed, as the toxic background in soil, water and living flesh increases day by day, that appears to be exactly what humanity is doing - driving itself to extinction. So be it.
How many times have people thought the world was going to end; and then it just went limping along? Dozens of times in recent recorded history. Contrary to communitarian's comments above, I am sure we can do something to defend life on earth, instead of just planning on buying the first ticket to Alpha Centauri or joining the other lemmings racing for the cliff. Rachel Carson said one person can make a difference, the Dalai Lama tells us never give up, keep on acting from the heart, and swami beyondananda says let the farce be with you. In short, we must act to protect species if we can, or do no harm if we cannot. In this case, to retreat from the known/surveyed/recorded range as a definition of the locale in which to defend a species is to dive into ignorance. We are not attempting to reintroduce the grizzly bear into San Diego where I live and where they lived in 1783. The Act intends to establish viable populations in available habitat within the boundaries of the USA. The current administration has done it again: ignored science and muddied the discussion by creating red herrings like the term "historic range." As for what we can do, let's start by impeaching the two malicious imposters who are in the President's and Vice President's seats and then boot out their clingons.
to communitarian; I see in your message Bertrand Russel shining through; "this however, I believe is a passing nightmare. In time the Earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return."
And to all who think that everything will be just fine, nothing to worry about... all the predictions of 'the world is coming to an end' were just that, predictions and projections, but the time-line is difficult for as to 'feel' because of our short life span. But these projections have accumulated and we now have to face the 'summary' of all warnings throughout our history. It's daunting.
We have lived our lives by a 2.500 years old projection. We didn't use this projection as a warning how NOT to proceed, but we rather treated it as a prophecy, trying hard NOT to prove our ancients wrong... we rather fought the ones who tried to work against the inevitability of facing a choice between EDEN & ARMAGEDDON. Many of us are actually exited and can't wait for the destruction to come. it's an easy way out, we don't need to worry about the coming shortages of resources or pollution etc. because we will be saved as a reward for the damage we caused to the planet and to each other. Do we have the courage to wake up...
Well It just takes a day for companies to take action on this, so Fight, Fight, Fight. Call your congressman. These are the times, if for just a short period, big business jumps down the throat of nature. Watch and see who is first to get to the kill. Bushco and supporters? Just don't be one of the stupid, we don't have time.