SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
How an Agency Charged with Protecting Endangered Animals Ignored Them Instead
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service did not intervene in thousands of environmentally harmful projects, new analysis shows
Dec 14, 2015
Since 2008, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has consistently refused to intervene in tens of thousands of projects considered potentially harmful to endangered animals, a new analysis by a conservation group published Monday reveals.
Defenders of Wildlife looked at an internal FWS assessment on the impact of more than 88,000 development projects on animals protected by the Endangered Species Act. FWS, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service, is required under the act's Section 7 to ensure federal projects are not likely to "jeopardize" or "destroy or adversely modify" a species or habitat.
Not one project was halted under those guidelines.
"The Endangered Species Act includes a basic, common sense, look-before-you-leap requirement: federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that their proposed actions won't threaten a listed species' survival," said Ya-Wei Li, senior director of the group's Endangered Species Conservation project and a co-author of the study.
"While our findings should lay to rest the unfounded claims by ESA-opponents that the act is destroying jobs and the economy, the study raises significant questions as to why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has virtually ceased finding that any projects threaten a species' survival," Li said. It also "dispel[s] the myth that the Endangered Species Act blocks projects and kills jobs across the country."
The results also show that the FWS's hands-off approach has strengthened over time. As the Guardian reports, "A tally from 1991 shows that there were 350 'jeopardy judgements' out of 73,560 previous consultations, compared with the two adverse outcomes in 80,000 cases over the past seven years."
The FWS intervened in a plan to use fire retardant in California, which was found potentially harmful to some species and may now only be used in designated zones, and restricted a plan to divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which threatened the endangered smelt.
Further complicating matters is the fact that the FWS can only regulate the "surface" of the habitats it oversees. That means private entities who own the land those habitats sit on have the legal standing to exploit it for resources. More than 100 wildlife refuges around the country have been converted into oil and gas drilling sites under that rule, the Guardian added.
As Li explained, "The Service [is] culturally less inclined to rock the boat. We need to take a step back and consider whether section seven is adequately protecting our species."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Since 2008, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has consistently refused to intervene in tens of thousands of projects considered potentially harmful to endangered animals, a new analysis by a conservation group published Monday reveals.
Defenders of Wildlife looked at an internal FWS assessment on the impact of more than 88,000 development projects on animals protected by the Endangered Species Act. FWS, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service, is required under the act's Section 7 to ensure federal projects are not likely to "jeopardize" or "destroy or adversely modify" a species or habitat.
Not one project was halted under those guidelines.
"The Endangered Species Act includes a basic, common sense, look-before-you-leap requirement: federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that their proposed actions won't threaten a listed species' survival," said Ya-Wei Li, senior director of the group's Endangered Species Conservation project and a co-author of the study.
"While our findings should lay to rest the unfounded claims by ESA-opponents that the act is destroying jobs and the economy, the study raises significant questions as to why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has virtually ceased finding that any projects threaten a species' survival," Li said. It also "dispel[s] the myth that the Endangered Species Act blocks projects and kills jobs across the country."
The results also show that the FWS's hands-off approach has strengthened over time. As the Guardian reports, "A tally from 1991 shows that there were 350 'jeopardy judgements' out of 73,560 previous consultations, compared with the two adverse outcomes in 80,000 cases over the past seven years."
The FWS intervened in a plan to use fire retardant in California, which was found potentially harmful to some species and may now only be used in designated zones, and restricted a plan to divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which threatened the endangered smelt.
Further complicating matters is the fact that the FWS can only regulate the "surface" of the habitats it oversees. That means private entities who own the land those habitats sit on have the legal standing to exploit it for resources. More than 100 wildlife refuges around the country have been converted into oil and gas drilling sites under that rule, the Guardian added.
As Li explained, "The Service [is] culturally less inclined to rock the boat. We need to take a step back and consider whether section seven is adequately protecting our species."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Since 2008, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has consistently refused to intervene in tens of thousands of projects considered potentially harmful to endangered animals, a new analysis by a conservation group published Monday reveals.
Defenders of Wildlife looked at an internal FWS assessment on the impact of more than 88,000 development projects on animals protected by the Endangered Species Act. FWS, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service, is required under the act's Section 7 to ensure federal projects are not likely to "jeopardize" or "destroy or adversely modify" a species or habitat.
Not one project was halted under those guidelines.
"The Endangered Species Act includes a basic, common sense, look-before-you-leap requirement: federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that their proposed actions won't threaten a listed species' survival," said Ya-Wei Li, senior director of the group's Endangered Species Conservation project and a co-author of the study.
"While our findings should lay to rest the unfounded claims by ESA-opponents that the act is destroying jobs and the economy, the study raises significant questions as to why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has virtually ceased finding that any projects threaten a species' survival," Li said. It also "dispel[s] the myth that the Endangered Species Act blocks projects and kills jobs across the country."
The results also show that the FWS's hands-off approach has strengthened over time. As the Guardian reports, "A tally from 1991 shows that there were 350 'jeopardy judgements' out of 73,560 previous consultations, compared with the two adverse outcomes in 80,000 cases over the past seven years."
The FWS intervened in a plan to use fire retardant in California, which was found potentially harmful to some species and may now only be used in designated zones, and restricted a plan to divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which threatened the endangered smelt.
Further complicating matters is the fact that the FWS can only regulate the "surface" of the habitats it oversees. That means private entities who own the land those habitats sit on have the legal standing to exploit it for resources. More than 100 wildlife refuges around the country have been converted into oil and gas drilling sites under that rule, the Guardian added.
As Li explained, "The Service [is] culturally less inclined to rock the boat. We need to take a step back and consider whether section seven is adequately protecting our species."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.