Ithaca 37
New member
This is worth reading!!
"I read with interest in The Idaho Statesman (Nov. 13) — Future of species protection gets scrutiny — Gov. Dirk Kempthorne “... wants to clear away barriers and allow states and private landowners to protect biological diversity … ”
Let´s examine the record. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973. Has Idaho passed its own ESA in the interim? Beyond the role of IDFG, is Idaho acting proactively to prevent the need for federal listings? Has Idaho actively and squarely addressed environmental problems? Some states have.
Why did Congress pass the ESA 30 years ago? In section 4 of the ESA there are listed the five factors used to determine whether a species should be listed or delisted. Threat factor “D” is “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.” In 1973 governments at all levels from federal to municipal had inadequate regulations to protect imperiled species and their habitats.
Has Idaho created a remedy for that inadequacy? Without the weight of the federal government, the will, the resolve to provide just adequate statutes to protect habitat and species are mostly lacking in Idaho. The ESA has been and still is a safety net to protect species and their habitats from the failures of government, industry, and private property owners to adequately address those problems that are the basis for federal intervention. It is triggered when those entities fail to provide adequate protection.
Has Idaho taken active steps to bring about recovery of salmon, steelhead, bull trout, wolves, grizzly bears, snails, a limpet, and caribou, or prevent the need to list other species? What actions are ongoing in Idaho that indicate there is a real will, a genuine resolve, to recover listed species and to prevent the need for additional listings? Certainly the governor´s Species Conservation Office is not about species protection. Nor is the Legislature. So, exactly where is the will, the resolve in Idaho government?
A few examples of ongoing problems:
• Water quality — The IDA monitors discharges from CAFOs, and there are problems that the EPA should look into.
• Water quantity — Perennial rivers dry up and aquifers are mined.
• Stream alteration — Public reviews of this important IDWR program ceased in 2002.
• Air quality — Field burning in the Panhandle and air quality in the Treasure Valley; where is the state leadership?
• Wild steelhead and salmon — the governor won´t consider dealing with the real problem, the dams. Rather, he puts at risk the water of Idaho´s farmers and forecloses on the profits that recovered steelhead and salmon would bring throughout the state.
Idaho has not demonstrated the will and the resolve to manage its threatened and endangered species or species otherwise imperiled. Leadership has been lacking in the governor´s office and at the Legislature. Change is needed. Such change will have to operate at a societal level within the state, and that will not happen overnight. It has not happened in Idaho in 30 years.
So, if the governor really wants to solve the problem, I have a few suggestions:
• Let the scientists, not the politicians or attorneys, in his employ have at it unencumbered by ideological leanings, and he needs to be open to their findings and recommendations.
• Propose a state ESA.
• Encourage real state/federal cooperation to find solutions to complex problems.
• Pressure the Congress to give recovery plans the force of regulation.
• Look for creative and realistic ways to bring private land owners and industry into the job of species and habitat preservation and recovery.
I wish him well."
Edition Date: 11-25-2003
"I read with interest in The Idaho Statesman (Nov. 13) — Future of species protection gets scrutiny — Gov. Dirk Kempthorne “... wants to clear away barriers and allow states and private landowners to protect biological diversity … ”
Let´s examine the record. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973. Has Idaho passed its own ESA in the interim? Beyond the role of IDFG, is Idaho acting proactively to prevent the need for federal listings? Has Idaho actively and squarely addressed environmental problems? Some states have.
Why did Congress pass the ESA 30 years ago? In section 4 of the ESA there are listed the five factors used to determine whether a species should be listed or delisted. Threat factor “D” is “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.” In 1973 governments at all levels from federal to municipal had inadequate regulations to protect imperiled species and their habitats.
Has Idaho created a remedy for that inadequacy? Without the weight of the federal government, the will, the resolve to provide just adequate statutes to protect habitat and species are mostly lacking in Idaho. The ESA has been and still is a safety net to protect species and their habitats from the failures of government, industry, and private property owners to adequately address those problems that are the basis for federal intervention. It is triggered when those entities fail to provide adequate protection.
Has Idaho taken active steps to bring about recovery of salmon, steelhead, bull trout, wolves, grizzly bears, snails, a limpet, and caribou, or prevent the need to list other species? What actions are ongoing in Idaho that indicate there is a real will, a genuine resolve, to recover listed species and to prevent the need for additional listings? Certainly the governor´s Species Conservation Office is not about species protection. Nor is the Legislature. So, exactly where is the will, the resolve in Idaho government?
A few examples of ongoing problems:
• Water quality — The IDA monitors discharges from CAFOs, and there are problems that the EPA should look into.
• Water quantity — Perennial rivers dry up and aquifers are mined.
• Stream alteration — Public reviews of this important IDWR program ceased in 2002.
• Air quality — Field burning in the Panhandle and air quality in the Treasure Valley; where is the state leadership?
• Wild steelhead and salmon — the governor won´t consider dealing with the real problem, the dams. Rather, he puts at risk the water of Idaho´s farmers and forecloses on the profits that recovered steelhead and salmon would bring throughout the state.
Idaho has not demonstrated the will and the resolve to manage its threatened and endangered species or species otherwise imperiled. Leadership has been lacking in the governor´s office and at the Legislature. Change is needed. Such change will have to operate at a societal level within the state, and that will not happen overnight. It has not happened in Idaho in 30 years.
So, if the governor really wants to solve the problem, I have a few suggestions:
• Let the scientists, not the politicians or attorneys, in his employ have at it unencumbered by ideological leanings, and he needs to be open to their findings and recommendations.
• Propose a state ESA.
• Encourage real state/federal cooperation to find solutions to complex problems.
• Pressure the Congress to give recovery plans the force of regulation.
• Look for creative and realistic ways to bring private land owners and industry into the job of species and habitat preservation and recovery.
I wish him well."
Edition Date: 11-25-2003
