Calif. Hunter
Active member
STARS ARE ALIGNING tomorrow to produce two seemingly contradictory
events in the
course of the 30-year-old Endangered Species Act, one of the nation's
best-known
conservation laws.
The eastern gray wolf will be formally proposed for removal from the
list of nearly
1,300 plants, animals and birds threatened with extinction, a step
touted by
Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton as a success story prompted by the
wolf's strong
resurgence in three Midwest states.
Meanwhile, the House Resources Committee is expected to approve
legislation that
would roll back federal protections that helped save the wolf, the
bald eagle and a
dozen other once-imperiled species.
Both developments, though, fit in a larger pattern of efforts to
accommodate the
farmers, ranchers, developers, miners, loggers and other private and
commercial
interests who have long considered the Endangered Species Act an
especially odious
federal dictate.
In fact, leaving the gray wolf to its own devices, even in the
Northeast states
where it has not yet reappeared, potentially represents a greater
unraveling of
protections than the committee action, which may be as far as the
legislation gets
this year.
Congress has been wrestling for at least a decade with attempts to
void the
Endangered Species Act. But not even the Republican-led House, which
typically
moves in lockstep in such policy fights, has been willing to tamper
with a law that
remains broadly popular with voters.
President Bush doesn't feel such constraints, and has moved to weaken
enforcement
of the law through regulatory means, much as he has with other
environmental
protections. Those changes include sharply decreasing the number of
new species
added to the list each year and curtailing new acreage of "critical
habitat"
designated off limits for their protection.
House Resource Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo, a California
rancher and
leading critic of the Endangered Species Act, argues it has been a
failure because
only a handful of species listed have recovered their populations,
despite costly
economic disruptions to property owners.
But most have been saved from extinction, and natural habitat has been
spared for
the benefit of all the wild things living there.
A Bush policy favoring incentives to landowners to protect habitat
over bitterly
received federal prohibitions might work fine if money is available.
As a last
resort, though, strict protections must remain on the books not only
for the sake
of wolves and eagles and less-glamorous critters but also for the vast
ecological
universe of which they are an integral part.
events in the
course of the 30-year-old Endangered Species Act, one of the nation's
best-known
conservation laws.
The eastern gray wolf will be formally proposed for removal from the
list of nearly
1,300 plants, animals and birds threatened with extinction, a step
touted by
Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton as a success story prompted by the
wolf's strong
resurgence in three Midwest states.
Meanwhile, the House Resources Committee is expected to approve
legislation that
would roll back federal protections that helped save the wolf, the
bald eagle and a
dozen other once-imperiled species.
Both developments, though, fit in a larger pattern of efforts to
accommodate the
farmers, ranchers, developers, miners, loggers and other private and
commercial
interests who have long considered the Endangered Species Act an
especially odious
federal dictate.
In fact, leaving the gray wolf to its own devices, even in the
Northeast states
where it has not yet reappeared, potentially represents a greater
unraveling of
protections than the committee action, which may be as far as the
legislation gets
this year.
Congress has been wrestling for at least a decade with attempts to
void the
Endangered Species Act. But not even the Republican-led House, which
typically
moves in lockstep in such policy fights, has been willing to tamper
with a law that
remains broadly popular with voters.
President Bush doesn't feel such constraints, and has moved to weaken
enforcement
of the law through regulatory means, much as he has with other
environmental
protections. Those changes include sharply decreasing the number of
new species
added to the list each year and curtailing new acreage of "critical
habitat"
designated off limits for their protection.
House Resource Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo, a California
rancher and
leading critic of the Endangered Species Act, argues it has been a
failure because
only a handful of species listed have recovered their populations,
despite costly
economic disruptions to property owners.
But most have been saved from extinction, and natural habitat has been
spared for
the benefit of all the wild things living there.
A Bush policy favoring incentives to landowners to protect habitat
over bitterly
received federal prohibitions might work fine if money is available.
As a last
resort, though, strict protections must remain on the books not only
for the sake
of wolves and eagles and less-glamorous critters but also for the vast
ecological
universe of which they are an integral part.
