

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The GOP's new draft legislation to overhaul the Endangered Species Act comes as federal officials propose allowing landowners to kill red wolves that leave a North Carolina wildlife reserve. (Photo: B. Bartel/USFWS/Flickr/cc)
Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) on Monday unveiled draft legislation to overhaul the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in a move that conservationists warn could jeopardize the progress that's been made through the landmark law and limit future initiatives to save various species from extinction.
"It's a bill which, on a broad basis, rewrites the ESA, with a whole host of consequences--as far as we can tell, almost entirely adverse consequences--for the protection of species," Bob Dreher, senior vice president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife, told The Hill. "This bill is all about politics. It's not about science. It's especially not about better ways to conserve endangered species."
Barrasso is a longtime critic of the ESA, and advocates for animals have slammed his ongoing "modernization" efforts as "a smokescreen for a vicious attack on this vital conservation law." This new proposal, Barrasso said, would increase input from state and regional officials, landowners, and "other stakeholders" in listing and conservation decisions, partly by enabling states to establish species' recovery teams that could "modify a recovery goal, habitat objective, or other established criteria, by unanimous vote with the approval of the secretary of the Interior."
It would also, the Casper Star-Tribune noted, "prohibit scientific data from being disclosed in a public records request--if it includes a business or private landowner's proprietary information. Otherwise, the scientific basis of decisions with a species is to be public information."
The draft legislation--which follows reports last week that the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed allowing landowners to legally kill those wolves once they leave the confines of a small protected area known as Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge" in North Carolina--was crafted with input from the Western Governors' Association (WGA), particularly the group's Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative.
Among the WGA's key goals, according to a report (pdf) published last month, is to "incentivize more widespread proactive and voluntary conservation efforts by industry and private landowners." The WGA initiative is led by Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, who, during a speech to the Wyoming Mining Association last year, said of the ESA, "It's not good industry, it's not good for business and, quite frankly, it's not good for the species."
Responding to Mead's remarks at the time, Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity had declared, "Governor Mead's statements show that rather than seeking to 'modernize' the Endangered Species Act as he claims, the goal is to repeal or severely hamstring it to benefit his campaign contributors in the fossil fuel industry."
The Center for Biological Diversity and several other conservation groups have repeatedly issued warnings about the intentions of WGA and Mead, with Hartl concluding in February: "Republicans in Congress are looking for political cover to repeal the Endangered Species Act, and any endorsement by the national governors to allegedly improve the Act would play into their profit-driven hands. Governor Mead is no friend of endangered species, and our most vulnerable animals and plants will be lost to extinction if his cynical attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act succeeds."
As Barrasso and his Republican colleagues in the Senate charge forward with his proposal, the conservation group Oceana is circulating a petition to urge members of Congress to fend off these "grave attacks from anti-environment interests" by voting against "bills that would weaken and undermine the ESA."
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 |
Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) on Monday unveiled draft legislation to overhaul the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in a move that conservationists warn could jeopardize the progress that's been made through the landmark law and limit future initiatives to save various species from extinction.
"It's a bill which, on a broad basis, rewrites the ESA, with a whole host of consequences--as far as we can tell, almost entirely adverse consequences--for the protection of species," Bob Dreher, senior vice president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife, told The Hill. "This bill is all about politics. It's not about science. It's especially not about better ways to conserve endangered species."
Barrasso is a longtime critic of the ESA, and advocates for animals have slammed his ongoing "modernization" efforts as "a smokescreen for a vicious attack on this vital conservation law." This new proposal, Barrasso said, would increase input from state and regional officials, landowners, and "other stakeholders" in listing and conservation decisions, partly by enabling states to establish species' recovery teams that could "modify a recovery goal, habitat objective, or other established criteria, by unanimous vote with the approval of the secretary of the Interior."
It would also, the Casper Star-Tribune noted, "prohibit scientific data from being disclosed in a public records request--if it includes a business or private landowner's proprietary information. Otherwise, the scientific basis of decisions with a species is to be public information."
The draft legislation--which follows reports last week that the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed allowing landowners to legally kill those wolves once they leave the confines of a small protected area known as Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge" in North Carolina--was crafted with input from the Western Governors' Association (WGA), particularly the group's Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative.
Among the WGA's key goals, according to a report (pdf) published last month, is to "incentivize more widespread proactive and voluntary conservation efforts by industry and private landowners." The WGA initiative is led by Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, who, during a speech to the Wyoming Mining Association last year, said of the ESA, "It's not good industry, it's not good for business and, quite frankly, it's not good for the species."
Responding to Mead's remarks at the time, Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity had declared, "Governor Mead's statements show that rather than seeking to 'modernize' the Endangered Species Act as he claims, the goal is to repeal or severely hamstring it to benefit his campaign contributors in the fossil fuel industry."
The Center for Biological Diversity and several other conservation groups have repeatedly issued warnings about the intentions of WGA and Mead, with Hartl concluding in February: "Republicans in Congress are looking for political cover to repeal the Endangered Species Act, and any endorsement by the national governors to allegedly improve the Act would play into their profit-driven hands. Governor Mead is no friend of endangered species, and our most vulnerable animals and plants will be lost to extinction if his cynical attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act succeeds."
As Barrasso and his Republican colleagues in the Senate charge forward with his proposal, the conservation group Oceana is circulating a petition to urge members of Congress to fend off these "grave attacks from anti-environment interests" by voting against "bills that would weaken and undermine the ESA."
Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) on Monday unveiled draft legislation to overhaul the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in a move that conservationists warn could jeopardize the progress that's been made through the landmark law and limit future initiatives to save various species from extinction.
"It's a bill which, on a broad basis, rewrites the ESA, with a whole host of consequences--as far as we can tell, almost entirely adverse consequences--for the protection of species," Bob Dreher, senior vice president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife, told The Hill. "This bill is all about politics. It's not about science. It's especially not about better ways to conserve endangered species."
Barrasso is a longtime critic of the ESA, and advocates for animals have slammed his ongoing "modernization" efforts as "a smokescreen for a vicious attack on this vital conservation law." This new proposal, Barrasso said, would increase input from state and regional officials, landowners, and "other stakeholders" in listing and conservation decisions, partly by enabling states to establish species' recovery teams that could "modify a recovery goal, habitat objective, or other established criteria, by unanimous vote with the approval of the secretary of the Interior."
It would also, the Casper Star-Tribune noted, "prohibit scientific data from being disclosed in a public records request--if it includes a business or private landowner's proprietary information. Otherwise, the scientific basis of decisions with a species is to be public information."
The draft legislation--which follows reports last week that the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed allowing landowners to legally kill those wolves once they leave the confines of a small protected area known as Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge" in North Carolina--was crafted with input from the Western Governors' Association (WGA), particularly the group's Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative.
Among the WGA's key goals, according to a report (pdf) published last month, is to "incentivize more widespread proactive and voluntary conservation efforts by industry and private landowners." The WGA initiative is led by Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, who, during a speech to the Wyoming Mining Association last year, said of the ESA, "It's not good industry, it's not good for business and, quite frankly, it's not good for the species."
Responding to Mead's remarks at the time, Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity had declared, "Governor Mead's statements show that rather than seeking to 'modernize' the Endangered Species Act as he claims, the goal is to repeal or severely hamstring it to benefit his campaign contributors in the fossil fuel industry."
The Center for Biological Diversity and several other conservation groups have repeatedly issued warnings about the intentions of WGA and Mead, with Hartl concluding in February: "Republicans in Congress are looking for political cover to repeal the Endangered Species Act, and any endorsement by the national governors to allegedly improve the Act would play into their profit-driven hands. Governor Mead is no friend of endangered species, and our most vulnerable animals and plants will be lost to extinction if his cynical attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act succeeds."
As Barrasso and his Republican colleagues in the Senate charge forward with his proposal, the conservation group Oceana is circulating a petition to urge members of Congress to fend off these "grave attacks from anti-environment interests" by voting against "bills that would weaken and undermine the ESA."