The deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks
Bad.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or mining…Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not based on “defensible science,” says a federal employee who asked to remain anonymous…[T]he proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a lawsuit. That’s fewer than in any other administration in history…Furthermore, during this administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit organization.
A top-ranking official overseeing the Fish and Wildlife Service at the Interior Department rode roughshod over agency scientists…Ms. MacDonald, an engineer by training, has provoked complaints from some wildlife biologists and lawyers in the agency for aggressive advocacy for industries’ views of the science that underlies agency decisions…The report, citing a lawyer in the Sacramento office, noted that Ms. MacDonald lobbied for a decision to combine three different populations of the California tiger salamander into one, thus excluding it from the endangered-species list, and making the decision legally vulnerable. A federal district judge overturned it in 2005., saying the decision was made “without even a semblance of agency reasoning.”…The inspector general also found that Ms. MacDonald had sent internal government documents by e-mail to a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation — a property-rights group that frequently challenges endangered-species decisions.
And so on, and so on. The Republican War on Science rages on. Bastards.
Hm… perhaps its just ‘working for friends when in Government’ rather than a war on science. The ‘War on Science’ seems about as well-argued as the ‘War on Christmas’.
Endangered species decisions are not about science, though there is a basis in science to evaluate populations and impacts. These decisions are a trade-off between interests – the interests of those who support a moral imperative to protect the environment we have stewardship of, vs the interests of economic development.
Both ends of this tension can be redrawn according to who has power, and seeing who is in da House I should hope this one will be reversed – if they can stop shovelling money to friends long enough to notice the problem. Is it really appropriate to frame one end of this tension as ‘science’?
We just had a really huge mine stopped in the Pilbara of Western Australia, to protect a small spider that lives in rock cavities. Most of the state have no idea what science might have to say except that the spider exists at the site. As a geologist, I would like to see some science in the decision myself.
At least the manouevering in the US has been spotted, and with the rethuglicans no longer in a congressional majority, it would seem that this attempt to make a short-term gain for a few, whilst destroying “wild” and ecologically sensitive areas is now doomed to fail.
Don’t bet on it. The Democrats are no less beholden to special interests than the Republicans – it’s just that some of the interests are different. But if there’s pork in some of these projects for states that are electorally marginal I don’t expect to see high-minded concern for any species except local humans to be exhibited.
For once I agree with ChrisPer. There is a lot of woowoo in “endangered species preservation.” A “species” will often be, for example, a “rare” butterfly with three spots which differs from a common, but otherwise identical, butterfly with two spots. Why a brand new species worthy of unique protection at whatever cost? Biologists eager to get their names in the scientific journals
On the other hand, I trust the Bushies exactly zero and sometimes these kinds of technicalities are what keeps every ounce of land from being raped or mined. Still….let’s be honest here about how clear cut “the science” is.
No, the point was not that the goal of preserving endangered species is science, but that the tactics used by Bush appointees are not based on science.