The Orwellian term of the day is "shotgun conservation," which describes a crazy federal plan to save endangered spotted owls by butchering barred owls, a competing species, which we now know are the real reason for the spotted owl's decline, not the loss of "old growth" forests.
Natural selection favors the barred owl. Yet natural selection apparently isn't permitted by the Endangered Species Act, which requires that every species be saved, even if the cold, hard laws of nature say otherwise.
Talk about playing God.
The timber industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated, thousands of high-paying jobs were destroyed and dozens of timber towns were brought to their knees based on the claim that the loss of "old growth" forests was to blame for the spotted owl's decline. But it belatedly became apparent that a rival species, doing what it does naturally, is invading the spotted owl's habitat and wiping it out. And the only response the feds can muster is a bizarre scheme to protect one species by killing-off the other.
The spotted owl saga is certainly among the most sordid in the annals of the ESA. But does anyone sue the federal government for regulatory malpractice and fraud? Is anyone called to account for the clear-cutting of jobs and opportunity in the former timber towns of Oregon and Washington State? The sad answer is "no" and "no."
It's hard to afford a good lawyer when you're living on food stamps.
Showing posts with label Endangered Species Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Endangered Species Act. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Why Fear the Ferret?
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Rich County residents have grown gun-shy of a proposal to start an experimental colony of endangered black-footed ferrets on a private, church-owned ranch there. And well they should be.
As Colorado learned the hard way, when former Gov. Bill Owens sucked us into a similar "experiment" with reintroduced Canada lynx, federal assurances that a wave of regulations won't follow in the wake of such experiments just can't be trusted. Folks in Utah are being told the same lies:
"Biologists tried to supply (skeptics with) certainty. Releasing the animals as an experimental, nonessential population, as the government has done with other ferret colonies, gives flexibility not allowed with endangered species enjoying full federal protection. Program managers said they wouldn’t impose restrictions on grazing or other uses even if ferrets migrate onto federal Bureau of Land Management land."
Such assurances are meaningless, as they proved meaningless in Colorado, because federal biologists and bureaucrats don't really control the process. They don't decide where federal regulations apply and were they don't. Listing and de-listing decisions generally are made by federal judges, responding to saturation litigation brought by professional environmental zealots, who have been shopping around for a judge who will place these "experimental" colonies under full federal protection. These efforts haven't succeeded, yet, but all it takes is one judge with a fondness for ferrets to nullify such agreements and lay-out a welcome mat for the feds.
Colorado welcomed reintroduced lynx based on similar assurances. That we were double-crossed should serve as a warning to all who are tempted by similar inducements to do something stupid. Until the Endangered Species Act is repealed or significantly reformed, and a bit more reason and sound science is introduced into federal efforts to preserve truly endangered species, only fools would invite a colony of black-footed ferrets into their backyards.
(Just click on the key words "Canada lynx" below for more on the Colorado case.)
As Colorado learned the hard way, when former Gov. Bill Owens sucked us into a similar "experiment" with reintroduced Canada lynx, federal assurances that a wave of regulations won't follow in the wake of such experiments just can't be trusted. Folks in Utah are being told the same lies:
"Biologists tried to supply (skeptics with) certainty. Releasing the animals as an experimental, nonessential population, as the government has done with other ferret colonies, gives flexibility not allowed with endangered species enjoying full federal protection. Program managers said they wouldn’t impose restrictions on grazing or other uses even if ferrets migrate onto federal Bureau of Land Management land."
Such assurances are meaningless, as they proved meaningless in Colorado, because federal biologists and bureaucrats don't really control the process. They don't decide where federal regulations apply and were they don't. Listing and de-listing decisions generally are made by federal judges, responding to saturation litigation brought by professional environmental zealots, who have been shopping around for a judge who will place these "experimental" colonies under full federal protection. These efforts haven't succeeded, yet, but all it takes is one judge with a fondness for ferrets to nullify such agreements and lay-out a welcome mat for the feds.
Colorado welcomed reintroduced lynx based on similar assurances. That we were double-crossed should serve as a warning to all who are tempted by similar inducements to do something stupid. Until the Endangered Species Act is repealed or significantly reformed, and a bit more reason and sound science is introduced into federal efforts to preserve truly endangered species, only fools would invite a colony of black-footed ferrets into their backyards.
(Just click on the key words "Canada lynx" below for more on the Colorado case.)
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Necessary Measures
A lot of howling will be heard and some fur may fly over a budget deal rider that removed federally-reintroduced wolves from the endangered species list. But in this case the ends really did justify the means.
This science fair project gone mad shows that the Endangered Species Act is hopelessly broken -- that it's just a playtoy in the hands of litigious nature-worshipers. Western states can't continue to operate under a wolf-related regulatory regime that changes almost month to month, based on the latest court ruling or judicial whim. Wolf numbers have grown far beyond the original goals, yet a de-listing was impossible to get. And impacted states are perfectly able of manage the packs in a responsible and sustainable way, without federal meddling. But the law is impossible to reform or repeal, so extraordinary measures were in this case warranted.
Using a legislative rider isn't an ideal way to set things right, admittedly. But an unworkable law and unreasonable people pushed us to this point.
This science fair project gone mad shows that the Endangered Species Act is hopelessly broken -- that it's just a playtoy in the hands of litigious nature-worshipers. Western states can't continue to operate under a wolf-related regulatory regime that changes almost month to month, based on the latest court ruling or judicial whim. Wolf numbers have grown far beyond the original goals, yet a de-listing was impossible to get. And impacted states are perfectly able of manage the packs in a responsible and sustainable way, without federal meddling. But the law is impossible to reform or repeal, so extraordinary measures were in this case warranted.
Using a legislative rider isn't an ideal way to set things right, admittedly. But an unworkable law and unreasonable people pushed us to this point.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Can't You Just Hear the Howling Now?
One lesser-known provision of the shutdown-averting budget agreement will remove reintroduced federal wolves from the endangered species list, ending a long-running battle that not only highlighted the absurdity of one of the nation's most powerful environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act, but showed how a lone agenda-driven federal judge can hand down dictates that tie an entire region in regulatory knots. I may not condone the means, but I loudly applaud the ends, since we can't have one activist judge and a gaggle of radical greens standing in the way of common sense and sound science forever.
It's a shame this couldn't be done legislatively, but a much-needed repeal or overhaul of the ESA by Congress just isn't in the cards, given the lobbying clout of Environmentalism Inc. The West shouldn't have to live in a perpetual state of regulatory conflict and uncertainty, with listing decisions seemingly changing on a monthly basis, just because Washington can't muster the courage to overrule arrogant judges, address the law's glaring flaws or bring an end to this impasse.
I can almost hear the howling this will generate in certain circles. But at this point, it's music to my ears.
It's a shame this couldn't be done legislatively, but a much-needed repeal or overhaul of the ESA by Congress just isn't in the cards, given the lobbying clout of Environmentalism Inc. The West shouldn't have to live in a perpetual state of regulatory conflict and uncertainty, with listing decisions seemingly changing on a monthly basis, just because Washington can't muster the courage to overrule arrogant judges, address the law's glaring flaws or bring an end to this impasse.
I can almost hear the howling this will generate in certain circles. But at this point, it's music to my ears.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Regulatory Triumph or Bureaucratic Blunder?
"Tiny Flower Saved from Extinction," is how The New York Times headlined its story about the Maguire daisy, which was removed this week from the endangered species list after a near-miraculous recovery assisted by good old Uncle Sam. Or that's what readers were led to believe. “The delisting of the Maguire daisy shows that the Endangered Species Act is an effective tool not only to save species from the brink of extinction but also to recover them to healthy populations,” assistant Secretary of Interior Tom Strickland was quoted as saying. The desert flower joins a growing list of rare plants and animals pulled back from the brink of oblivion thanks to federal intervention, reported the Times, "including such species as the bald eagle, the Virginia northern flying squirrel, the American peregrine falcon, the red kangaroo and the North Pacific population of the gray whale."
But that's just spin. "Saving" the daisy is not the regulatory triumph Times readers were led to believe: It's actually a case of bureaucratic bumbling and regulatory malpractice that took 25 years to correct.
The daisy didn't need "saving" because it was never in serious danger, which you would only learn by reading the far more nuanced, far more accurate, far more honest account published in The Salt Lake Tribune.
"It turns out the southern Utah desert’s rare Maguire daisy wasn’t nearly as rare as believed.
First listed as an endangered species in 1985 and downgraded to threatened in 1996, the brushy little white flower that peeks out from under rocks on sandstone mesas and in canyons is now "recovered" and will disappear entirely from the list of federally protected species.
Once thought to have only seven specimens in the San Rafael Swell’s Calf Canyon, the daisy now numbers at least 163,000 plants, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
It’s not just that the plants thrived under protection, said Bekee Hotze, the agency’s chief of terrestrial endangered species for Utah. Rather, the scrutiny that came with the daisy’s listing led an interagency botany team to search for more, and they found plenty growing south through the swell and in Capitol Reef National Park.
"This species probably got listed too quickly," said Tony Frates, conservation coordinator for the Utah Native Plant Society. It likely wouldn’t happen today, he added, because the government is more thorough in its research before listings."
The daisy is one of many species that gain federal protection erroneously or prematurely, only to have researchers later discover that the science was flawed and the threat was exaggerated. About a third of all species removed from the list fall into this category. They gain federal protection under false pretenses, forced onto the list, usually, by lawsuit-happy green groups pursuing an anti-development agenda. The daisy served as a pawn in efforts to block drilling and mining in Utah's San Rafael Swell, and the ploy probably worked, as it usually does.
Proponents of the "precautionary principle" see nothing wrong with such listings: "better safe than sorry" and "whatever it takes" are their mantras. But that presumes that such erroneous or premature listings are cost-free events, with few consequences for anyone other than the plant or animal being "protected." This ignores the mounting "opportunity costs" of having federal bureaucrats working to protect something that doesn't need protection, instead of spending their time protecting species in real need of attention. And the critical habitat designations that accompany such listings carry significant costs for those on whom the regulatory hammer falls, whether it be the energy company denied a drilling permit, the recreationists denies access to a road or trail, the private land owner who must hire a professional consultant, and commission a study, before she can construct a tool shed in the "critical habitat" overlaying her property.
Better "science" will sooner or later expose some of these scams -- usually later. But by then a lot of unnecessary costs have been incurred, and a lot of regulatory damage has been done. The listing has locked-up thousands or tens of thousands of acres of "critical habitat," sometimes for decades, even though the species for whom it's set aside is not in critical condition. That's how the endangered species game is played. And it is a game -- albeit one with huge implications for those unfortunate enough to get crushed by the regulatory steamroller that a listing unleashes.
A Google search of news coverage shows that virtually all of it paints this as an Endangered Species Act "success story," although it's just the opposite. The Maguire daisy actually shows how flawed listing "science" can be, how slowly the bureaucracy catches bad listings and how vulnerable the law is to misuse and abuse.
But that's just spin. "Saving" the daisy is not the regulatory triumph Times readers were led to believe: It's actually a case of bureaucratic bumbling and regulatory malpractice that took 25 years to correct.
The daisy didn't need "saving" because it was never in serious danger, which you would only learn by reading the far more nuanced, far more accurate, far more honest account published in The Salt Lake Tribune.
"It turns out the southern Utah desert’s rare Maguire daisy wasn’t nearly as rare as believed.
First listed as an endangered species in 1985 and downgraded to threatened in 1996, the brushy little white flower that peeks out from under rocks on sandstone mesas and in canyons is now "recovered" and will disappear entirely from the list of federally protected species.
Once thought to have only seven specimens in the San Rafael Swell’s Calf Canyon, the daisy now numbers at least 163,000 plants, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
It’s not just that the plants thrived under protection, said Bekee Hotze, the agency’s chief of terrestrial endangered species for Utah. Rather, the scrutiny that came with the daisy’s listing led an interagency botany team to search for more, and they found plenty growing south through the swell and in Capitol Reef National Park.
"This species probably got listed too quickly," said Tony Frates, conservation coordinator for the Utah Native Plant Society. It likely wouldn’t happen today, he added, because the government is more thorough in its research before listings."
The daisy is one of many species that gain federal protection erroneously or prematurely, only to have researchers later discover that the science was flawed and the threat was exaggerated. About a third of all species removed from the list fall into this category. They gain federal protection under false pretenses, forced onto the list, usually, by lawsuit-happy green groups pursuing an anti-development agenda. The daisy served as a pawn in efforts to block drilling and mining in Utah's San Rafael Swell, and the ploy probably worked, as it usually does.
Proponents of the "precautionary principle" see nothing wrong with such listings: "better safe than sorry" and "whatever it takes" are their mantras. But that presumes that such erroneous or premature listings are cost-free events, with few consequences for anyone other than the plant or animal being "protected." This ignores the mounting "opportunity costs" of having federal bureaucrats working to protect something that doesn't need protection, instead of spending their time protecting species in real need of attention. And the critical habitat designations that accompany such listings carry significant costs for those on whom the regulatory hammer falls, whether it be the energy company denied a drilling permit, the recreationists denies access to a road or trail, the private land owner who must hire a professional consultant, and commission a study, before she can construct a tool shed in the "critical habitat" overlaying her property.
Better "science" will sooner or later expose some of these scams -- usually later. But by then a lot of unnecessary costs have been incurred, and a lot of regulatory damage has been done. The listing has locked-up thousands or tens of thousands of acres of "critical habitat," sometimes for decades, even though the species for whom it's set aside is not in critical condition. That's how the endangered species game is played. And it is a game -- albeit one with huge implications for those unfortunate enough to get crushed by the regulatory steamroller that a listing unleashes.
A Google search of news coverage shows that virtually all of it paints this as an Endangered Species Act "success story," although it's just the opposite. The Maguire daisy actually shows how flawed listing "science" can be, how slowly the bureaucracy catches bad listings and how vulnerable the law is to misuse and abuse.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
"The Green Gavel" Not Quite Gone Yet
I wish this news item were reporting the retirement of U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, rather than just his shift to "senior" status, since he's long been the go-to guy for extreme greens looking for a friendly court and favorable ruling -- including, most recently, one restoring gray wolves to the endangered species list, even though they're overrunning many parts of the West.
Molloy is a not just an activist judge, he's the activist's judge -- a man whose radical, green-leaning rulings made him a virtual dictator of policy on millions of acres of public land. He's also a prime example of why the lifetime appointment of federal judges is a bad idea. Senior status means Molloy can take his act on the road, as a traveling judicial activist. "I imagine he will sit on the 9th Circuit by invitation," one colleague told The Billings Gazette, referring to the most notoriously-liberal court in the land.
He'll fit right in, no doubt.
Molloy is a not just an activist judge, he's the activist's judge -- a man whose radical, green-leaning rulings made him a virtual dictator of policy on millions of acres of public land. He's also a prime example of why the lifetime appointment of federal judges is a bad idea. Senior status means Molloy can take his act on the road, as a traveling judicial activist. "I imagine he will sit on the 9th Circuit by invitation," one colleague told The Billings Gazette, referring to the most notoriously-liberal court in the land.
He'll fit right in, no doubt.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Flirting with Disaster
As a Michigan native I'm partial to wolverines, even if they haven't won a Rose Bowl in too many years. But I still believe Colorado would be crazy to welcome reintroduction of the animals into the state, given the headaches we face with current listings and the obvious dysfunctionality of the Endangered Species Act. Until the law is fixed, we shouldn't invite any more trouble, no matter how cute and fuzzy-faced the creature may be.
We already have major problems with the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, as most locals know, and those problems just multiplied with the decision by the feds to expand "critical habitat" for a subspecies of questionable scientific validity. We're only now beginning to feel the impacts of Canada lynx reintroduction, even though we were promised, when the effort began, that Colorado would be spared the regulatory hammer if it went along with the experiment. That, we now know, was a bait and switch.
And it's only a matter of time before a significant number of federally-reintroduced wolves wander into the state, dragging Colorado into the political and legal quagmire faced by Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, as they try to manage the animals and force a de-listing through the courts. The wolf fight has demonstrated beyond a doubt that ESA is broken. And that problem will become Colorado's problem in not-too-many years.
No, no, hell no. Coloradans should vigorously oppose any effort to import wolverines into the state -- unless they come wearing maize and blue, with those hideously cool helmets, to open up a can of Big Ten-style whoopass on the hapless CU Buffs.
We already have major problems with the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, as most locals know, and those problems just multiplied with the decision by the feds to expand "critical habitat" for a subspecies of questionable scientific validity. We're only now beginning to feel the impacts of Canada lynx reintroduction, even though we were promised, when the effort began, that Colorado would be spared the regulatory hammer if it went along with the experiment. That, we now know, was a bait and switch.
And it's only a matter of time before a significant number of federally-reintroduced wolves wander into the state, dragging Colorado into the political and legal quagmire faced by Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, as they try to manage the animals and force a de-listing through the courts. The wolf fight has demonstrated beyond a doubt that ESA is broken. And that problem will become Colorado's problem in not-too-many years.
No, no, hell no. Coloradans should vigorously oppose any effort to import wolverines into the state -- unless they come wearing maize and blue, with those hideously cool helmets, to open up a can of Big Ten-style whoopass on the hapless CU Buffs.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Fur May Fly Over Federal Bait and Switch
Imperial Washington has some states on the verge of rebellion. They’re acting out in various ways. Some are taking ObamaCare to court. Others are challenging Washington on firearms and emissions controls. One state, Arizona, is bucking Uncle Sam on immigration enforcement.
But what, one wonders, will be the breaking point? When will all the neo-federalist saber-rattling -- all the talk of the 10th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, nullification – cross the line and become in-your-face defiance? What state, what governor, will take this resistance movement the next step, and force the seemingly-inevitable showdown, by just saying "no" to Washington?
I think the breaking point may come in a relatively unexpected place, on a relatively obscure issue -- wolf reintroduction.
The history of federal re-wilding efforts involving gray wolves is too convoluted to detail here. But the program's statistical success, instead of quelling the controversy, is actually bringing the conflict to a fresh boil, as Wyoming, Idaho and Montana fight for a federal de-listing decision they think science and the original program benchmarks support. One federal judge in Missoula thinks otherwise, and recently reversed wolf de-listing at the behest of green litigants. Frustrated states, feeling betrayed by what they view as a bait-and-switch, seem on the verge of open rebellion. There is talk of states refusing to enforce federal wolf protections, in the face of an escalating number of conflicts between man and beast.
The fight over wolves has from the beginning been a states' rights dispute, but it's becoming more obviously so every day.
Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat who gained and maintained popularity in the Cowboy State by standing up to Washington on a range of issues, precipitated the most recent conflict, by declining to strictly follow federal dictates on how states should manage the booming number of reintroduced wolves. It was that lack of uniformity, across the 3 states most impacted by the re-wilding effort, that served as the pretext for a recent re-listing of the animals by a federal judge in Montana. That reversal of a widely-applauded de-listing decision angered many and reignited the conflict.
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter's announcement that his state will no longer pay compensation for livestock kills by wolves, his bitter accusations of promises broken by the federal government and his evoking of Idaho's "sovereign right to protect our wildlife" from wolf predation, seem to move us a step closer to a showdown -- one that's fueled by the powerlessness Westerners feel living in Washington's long shadow.
Some are hoping to get relief by working the issue in Washington, but that's a fool's errand, if history is any guide. Environmentalism Inc. has a lot of lobbying clout inside the beltway. It has turned back any and all attempts to reform, temper or tweak the Endangered Species Act. Non-Westerners in Congress don't understand or don't care about the law's impacts out here. Getting Congress to intervene on the side of common sense seems like mission impossible. State legislators also are talking strategy, but what they can do about any of this is questionable.
Legal avenues to relief remain open, but fickle federal judges and conflicting and contradictory rulings make coherent policymaking nearly impossible. Today the wolves are listed, tomorrow they're not. Two days later, some robed dictator in a federal courthouse, interpreting an inflexible and unworkable law, is pushing policy in another direction. Public lands policy-making through judicial edict helped create this jumbled mess: no reasonable person looks there for the answer.
All this, along with the frustration that comes from feeling betrayed, and the fact that wolf recovery benchmarks keep shifting, has people in wolf-impacted states in a very rebellious mood, with some at the grassroots pushing for a non-compliance or open defiance. The old joke about adopting the "Triple S" approach to wolf management -- shoot, shovel and shut-up -- is now told in less jocular tones. A sagebrush rebellion is being reborn. Wolf management is becoming a states' rights issue, setting the stage for a test of wills.
How Washington would police the far-flung federal wolfpack without state assistance is unknown. It probably lacks the resources and manpower to do so. Would President Obama sue states to force compliance, or dispatch the national guard to babysit federal wolves if states refuse to comply with a court order? That could precipitate quite a showdown -- perhaps even bigger than what's happening in Arizona -- given the anti-Washington mood that prevails.
No one relishes the thought of such a confrontation, but unless something soon gives -- either the states or the feds -- that seems to be the path we're walking. On this issue, wolf-impacted states feel as if they've given all they can, and more. For every inch they've given, a mile has been taken. And if the fur must fly, it might as well fly over this issue.
But what, one wonders, will be the breaking point? When will all the neo-federalist saber-rattling -- all the talk of the 10th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, nullification – cross the line and become in-your-face defiance? What state, what governor, will take this resistance movement the next step, and force the seemingly-inevitable showdown, by just saying "no" to Washington?
I think the breaking point may come in a relatively unexpected place, on a relatively obscure issue -- wolf reintroduction.
The history of federal re-wilding efforts involving gray wolves is too convoluted to detail here. But the program's statistical success, instead of quelling the controversy, is actually bringing the conflict to a fresh boil, as Wyoming, Idaho and Montana fight for a federal de-listing decision they think science and the original program benchmarks support. One federal judge in Missoula thinks otherwise, and recently reversed wolf de-listing at the behest of green litigants. Frustrated states, feeling betrayed by what they view as a bait-and-switch, seem on the verge of open rebellion. There is talk of states refusing to enforce federal wolf protections, in the face of an escalating number of conflicts between man and beast.
The fight over wolves has from the beginning been a states' rights dispute, but it's becoming more obviously so every day.
Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat who gained and maintained popularity in the Cowboy State by standing up to Washington on a range of issues, precipitated the most recent conflict, by declining to strictly follow federal dictates on how states should manage the booming number of reintroduced wolves. It was that lack of uniformity, across the 3 states most impacted by the re-wilding effort, that served as the pretext for a recent re-listing of the animals by a federal judge in Montana. That reversal of a widely-applauded de-listing decision angered many and reignited the conflict.
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter's announcement that his state will no longer pay compensation for livestock kills by wolves, his bitter accusations of promises broken by the federal government and his evoking of Idaho's "sovereign right to protect our wildlife" from wolf predation, seem to move us a step closer to a showdown -- one that's fueled by the powerlessness Westerners feel living in Washington's long shadow.
Some are hoping to get relief by working the issue in Washington, but that's a fool's errand, if history is any guide. Environmentalism Inc. has a lot of lobbying clout inside the beltway. It has turned back any and all attempts to reform, temper or tweak the Endangered Species Act. Non-Westerners in Congress don't understand or don't care about the law's impacts out here. Getting Congress to intervene on the side of common sense seems like mission impossible. State legislators also are talking strategy, but what they can do about any of this is questionable.
Legal avenues to relief remain open, but fickle federal judges and conflicting and contradictory rulings make coherent policymaking nearly impossible. Today the wolves are listed, tomorrow they're not. Two days later, some robed dictator in a federal courthouse, interpreting an inflexible and unworkable law, is pushing policy in another direction. Public lands policy-making through judicial edict helped create this jumbled mess: no reasonable person looks there for the answer.
All this, along with the frustration that comes from feeling betrayed, and the fact that wolf recovery benchmarks keep shifting, has people in wolf-impacted states in a very rebellious mood, with some at the grassroots pushing for a non-compliance or open defiance. The old joke about adopting the "Triple S" approach to wolf management -- shoot, shovel and shut-up -- is now told in less jocular tones. A sagebrush rebellion is being reborn. Wolf management is becoming a states' rights issue, setting the stage for a test of wills.
How Washington would police the far-flung federal wolfpack without state assistance is unknown. It probably lacks the resources and manpower to do so. Would President Obama sue states to force compliance, or dispatch the national guard to babysit federal wolves if states refuse to comply with a court order? That could precipitate quite a showdown -- perhaps even bigger than what's happening in Arizona -- given the anti-Washington mood that prevails.
No one relishes the thought of such a confrontation, but unless something soon gives -- either the states or the feds -- that seems to be the path we're walking. On this issue, wolf-impacted states feel as if they've given all they can, and more. For every inch they've given, a mile has been taken. And if the fur must fly, it might as well fly over this issue.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Trojan Cat
Diabetics beware: reading this editorial in today's Denver Post could have you reaching for the insulin.
Not sure what it is about endangered species that leads to the suspension of all skepticism among journalists. Hand them a pretty picture of a "majestic" Canada lynx running free in Colorado and they go weak in the knees. Then all we hear from these supposedly hard-bitten cynics is goo-goos and ga-gas. Not once in this 500-word gusher do the larger implications of lynx reintroduction get a mention, though the cats already are having significant adverse impacts on how public lands are managed in Colorado.
The reintroduction is a success story, of sorts, if you ignore the fact that Canada lynx are, technically-speaking, an invasive species (much like the gray wolves released in the Northern Rockies are invasive), along with the fact that Colorado marked the southernmost boundary of their historic habitat, meaning that they never exactly flourished here. But like the "successful" reintroduction of the wolf, it can complicate life for the rest of us -- something that the Post doesn't mention.
Before Colorado volunteered to be part of this experiment -- based on a promise that we wouldn't have the regulatory hammer lowered by the feds if the experiment worked -- anyone claiming that a ski resort couldn't be expanded, or a forest trail improved, because of "lynx habitat" would have been laughed out of the room. No lynx, no habitat, no problem, in short. Federal land managers would have to dream-up another excuse to say "no" to something.
But that's no longer the case in Colorado. With a colony of the cats now firmly established, "lynx habitat" now becomes a credible catch-all excuse to block this project or that one. It's a regulatory Trojan horse, which Colorado invited in, rather gullibly. And like the defenders of Troy, we'll now pay a heavy price for that gullibility.
Not sure what it is about endangered species that leads to the suspension of all skepticism among journalists. Hand them a pretty picture of a "majestic" Canada lynx running free in Colorado and they go weak in the knees. Then all we hear from these supposedly hard-bitten cynics is goo-goos and ga-gas. Not once in this 500-word gusher do the larger implications of lynx reintroduction get a mention, though the cats already are having significant adverse impacts on how public lands are managed in Colorado.
The reintroduction is a success story, of sorts, if you ignore the fact that Canada lynx are, technically-speaking, an invasive species (much like the gray wolves released in the Northern Rockies are invasive), along with the fact that Colorado marked the southernmost boundary of their historic habitat, meaning that they never exactly flourished here. But like the "successful" reintroduction of the wolf, it can complicate life for the rest of us -- something that the Post doesn't mention.
Before Colorado volunteered to be part of this experiment -- based on a promise that we wouldn't have the regulatory hammer lowered by the feds if the experiment worked -- anyone claiming that a ski resort couldn't be expanded, or a forest trail improved, because of "lynx habitat" would have been laughed out of the room. No lynx, no habitat, no problem, in short. Federal land managers would have to dream-up another excuse to say "no" to something.
But that's no longer the case in Colorado. With a colony of the cats now firmly established, "lynx habitat" now becomes a credible catch-all excuse to block this project or that one. It's a regulatory Trojan horse, which Colorado invited in, rather gullibly. And like the defenders of Troy, we'll now pay a heavy price for that gullibility.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
All the Right Enemies
I was surprised (but not displeased) to see a "Richard Pombo for Congress" ad in today's online version of The Colorado Springs Gazette. We're a long way from California's 19th District, where Pombo is running, and readers may wonder who he is and why they should care about this race.
More about who he is can be found at his campaign website. Why his candidacy matters to out-of-state voters is explained in the recent Wall Street Journal column republished on the site (reading the original requires a subscription). The Reader's Digest condensation is this: Gang green hates Pombo because he is a stalwart defender of property rights and was an effective counterweight to their extreme agenda when he previously served in Congress. He fought abuses and misuses of the Endangered Species Act. He fought for economic freedom and regulatory reform, and against the encroachment of the federal government.
The Big Green Machine mustered all its might (and all its smear tactics) to knock him out of Congress once; it badly wants to keep him from getting in again. Isn't that reason enough to learn more about Richard Pombo? He must have been doing something right if so many wrong-headed people want to keep him out of Congress.
Some congressional races take on national significance. This may be one of them.
More about who he is can be found at his campaign website. Why his candidacy matters to out-of-state voters is explained in the recent Wall Street Journal column republished on the site (reading the original requires a subscription). The Reader's Digest condensation is this: Gang green hates Pombo because he is a stalwart defender of property rights and was an effective counterweight to their extreme agenda when he previously served in Congress. He fought abuses and misuses of the Endangered Species Act. He fought for economic freedom and regulatory reform, and against the encroachment of the federal government.
The Big Green Machine mustered all its might (and all its smear tactics) to knock him out of Congress once; it badly wants to keep him from getting in again. Isn't that reason enough to learn more about Richard Pombo? He must have been doing something right if so many wrong-headed people want to keep him out of Congress.
Some congressional races take on national significance. This may be one of them.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Moving Target
Ever wonder why there are so few endangered species success stories? Could it be because federal agencies and green groups keep moving the goal posts on what constitutes species recovery?
The federal wolf reintroduction program offers a good case in point.
The federal wolf reintroduction program offers a good case in point.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Tax Credits and Cooperative Conservation
I agree in principle with the goal of moving federal environmental policy away from coercive conservation (which has been the prevailing model since the early 1970s) and toward "cooperative conservation," a concept that was touted by the Bush administration but gained little traction (mainly because nothing touted by the Bush administration could possibly win favor with left-leaning greens). And a part of that paradigm shift will almost certainly involve using economic incentives, rather than the blunt force of government mandates, to encourage environmental stewardship.
Simply paying people to do the right thing -- to create or maintain habitat for the Salt Pond Slime Slug, for instance -- is one concept that some, like Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, are pushing. But as someone who also believes in the conservation of endangered tax dollars, I worry that the tax credit system Crapo is proposing, if not tightly controlled, will lead to widespread gaming of the system and a massive waste of money.
Crapo's attempt to incrementally reform the Endangered Species Act is laudable (given the political futility of trying to overhaul it all at once). But the tax credit component can hardly be called "targeted," and the potential for scams will be huge, if they'll cost an estimated $2 billion over ten years. Billions already are squandered annually, paying farmers to idle their fields in the name of improving wildlife habitat or protecting so-called wetlands. Whether any of these programs serve as anything more than a federal sop has never been shown (or seriously studied, as far as I know). It mostly amounts to slapping the "green" label on another government giveaway. Expecting Crapo's program to operate with more accountability, and integrity, is probably folly.
That's the sort of cynicism that's bound to greet even a decent and interesting idea, given the federal government's almost perfect track record for turning good ideas into a scandalous glop.
Simply paying people to do the right thing -- to create or maintain habitat for the Salt Pond Slime Slug, for instance -- is one concept that some, like Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, are pushing. But as someone who also believes in the conservation of endangered tax dollars, I worry that the tax credit system Crapo is proposing, if not tightly controlled, will lead to widespread gaming of the system and a massive waste of money.
Crapo's attempt to incrementally reform the Endangered Species Act is laudable (given the political futility of trying to overhaul it all at once). But the tax credit component can hardly be called "targeted," and the potential for scams will be huge, if they'll cost an estimated $2 billion over ten years. Billions already are squandered annually, paying farmers to idle their fields in the name of improving wildlife habitat or protecting so-called wetlands. Whether any of these programs serve as anything more than a federal sop has never been shown (or seriously studied, as far as I know). It mostly amounts to slapping the "green" label on another government giveaway. Expecting Crapo's program to operate with more accountability, and integrity, is probably folly.
That's the sort of cynicism that's bound to greet even a decent and interesting idea, given the federal government's almost perfect track record for turning good ideas into a scandalous glop.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Setting the Stage for the Next Energy Crisis
The energy economy of the Rockies has gone from boom to bust in only a few short years, jacking-up jobless rates and leaving a yawning hole in state coffers. But two new body blows are poised to slam energy producers, courtesy of anti-drilling obstructionists and green-leaning Democrats.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Wednesday announced new regulatory barriers to domestic oil and gas development, under the guise of giving the public a greater say in the approval process. And a likely Endangered Species Act listing of the sage grouse promises to throw yet another monkey wrench into the works, not just for oil and gas producers but for wind projects too.
Any suggestion that the public lacks influence over drilling decisions is just bizarre. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) makes ample -- arguably excessive -- provision for public input (though the "public" process routinely gets hijacked by professional extremists who are anything but "mainstream"). And federal energy leases frequently are canceled or shelved at the behest of greens and NIMBYs.
Burying federal land managers in more layers of process will further stunt domestic energy production and deepen our reliance on foreign imports. This White House is killing jobs with one hand, while claiming to "create" jobs with the other, and setting the stage today for tomorrow's energy crunch.
When the next energy crisis crashes down on us, as it will when the world economy recovers from its swoon, Americans might think back on such decisions when they're searching for the reasons. Assuming, that is, they can connect the dots between regulatory causes and market effects. That will demand a level of economic literacy most Americans lack.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Wednesday announced new regulatory barriers to domestic oil and gas development, under the guise of giving the public a greater say in the approval process. And a likely Endangered Species Act listing of the sage grouse promises to throw yet another monkey wrench into the works, not just for oil and gas producers but for wind projects too.
Any suggestion that the public lacks influence over drilling decisions is just bizarre. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) makes ample -- arguably excessive -- provision for public input (though the "public" process routinely gets hijacked by professional extremists who are anything but "mainstream"). And federal energy leases frequently are canceled or shelved at the behest of greens and NIMBYs.
Burying federal land managers in more layers of process will further stunt domestic energy production and deepen our reliance on foreign imports. This White House is killing jobs with one hand, while claiming to "create" jobs with the other, and setting the stage today for tomorrow's energy crunch.
When the next energy crisis crashes down on us, as it will when the world economy recovers from its swoon, Americans might think back on such decisions when they're searching for the reasons. Assuming, that is, they can connect the dots between regulatory causes and market effects. That will demand a level of economic literacy most Americans lack.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Why Fear the Black-Footed Ferret?
I’ve written before about what a mistake I think it is for Fort Carson to volunteer as a testing ground for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. I have nothing against ferrets, per se. They seem cuddly and adorable – unless you’re a prairie dog. I just believe American military bases have enough trouble with so-called “encroachment issues” – restrictions on training activities resulting from excessive environmental rules or complaints from NIMBYs – that they shouldn’t invite more of it. That’s exactly what Fort Carson is doing in this case.
Establishing a ferret colony at Fort Carson is just the sort of heart-warming story that earns the base brownie points with animal advocates and environmentalists. It’s good PR. They may rain fire and death on America's enemies, but hey, they're nice to animals. But I fear it will come back to bite the base on the ass if the animals living in this and other experimental colonies win listing as endangered species.
With a listing comes more regulation. With more federal regulation comes restrictions on training. Restrictions on training make bases less useful. Less useful bases end up on closure lists. Closed bases aren’t good for the local economy.
Follow my logic? Folks at Fort Carson obviously don’t.
But maybe this story in the Sept. 8 Billings Gazette will help them see the long-term implications of that they're doing. Here's an excerpt:
Three groups ask feds to protect reintroduced ferrets
CHEYENNE - Three environmental groups say they are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets as endangered.
The federal government already protects black-footed ferrets as an endangered species. But it's a Catch-22: The protection doesn't apply to 17 reintroduced ferret populations in eight states, which are the only black-footed ferrets known to exist in the wild.
Instead of being endangered, they are considered "nonessential experimental" populations.
The groups WildEarth Guardians, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and Center for Native Ecosystems want three black-footed ferret populations - in western Arizona's Aubrey Valley, southwestern South Dakota's Conata Basin and southeast Wyoming's Shirley Basin - designated as endangered. The groups announced Tuesday that they had submitted an endangered species petition to the Fish and Wildlife Service . . .
. . . . Black-footed ferrets were believed to be extinct in the wild until a population turned up in Wyoming in 1981. The 18 animals remaining in that population soon were rounded up for a captive-breeding program.
Fish and Wildlife began releasing captive-bred ferrets in Wyoming's Shirley Basin in 1991. Subsequent populations have been established in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Kansas, South Dakota and Utah.
But only the Arizona, South Dakota and Wyoming populations in the endangered species petition are considered viable, said Erik Molvar, with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.”
Fort Carson’s ferret colony isn’t one of the “nonessential experimental” populations the groups want listed, so the base is in no great danger at the moment. But if this lawsuit succeeds, and if Fort Carson ferrets flourish, it won’t be too long before environmental groups are suing to have this colony listed too. That’s not necessarily the end of the world. A number of military facilities continue to function with endangered species on base. But the work-arounds can be costly and the encumbrances can be significant. It’s not something any base would want, much less invite.
It’s a little dated, but here’s a piece I did on the encroachment problem at American military bases back in 2001: link. I think it’s safe to assume things have gotten worse since then. Endangered Species Act rules have become a nightmarish fact of live at many facilities. But this is the first time I’ve seen a base actually courting such problems, thanks to such a stunning lack of foresight.
As the case of the Canada lynx shows, there’s a game of bait-and-switch being played when it comes to experimental populations of endangered species. The federal government promises that the normal regulations and regulations won’t apply at the time of reintroduction. But once the animals are established, and the listing petitions and lawsuits start flying, such agreements aren’t worth bupkis. Colorado agreed to host an experimental population of Canada Lynx back in the Bill Owens era, based on assurances that a tidal wave of new rules wouldn’t follow. But today you have “lynx habitat” being used by federal agencies as a reason to limit ski resort expansions and stop forest thinning projects. The old promises mean nothing. Colorado is being punished for showing the lynx a little compassion.
If Fort Carson commanders are smart, if folks in the Pentagon are smart, they’ll start looking for reasons to quietly back away from this animal rescue mission, which is unrelated and potentially detrimental to the facility’s main purpose. There are better places to put ferret colonies. And there are better uses for military bases.
Establishing a ferret colony at Fort Carson is just the sort of heart-warming story that earns the base brownie points with animal advocates and environmentalists. It’s good PR. They may rain fire and death on America's enemies, but hey, they're nice to animals. But I fear it will come back to bite the base on the ass if the animals living in this and other experimental colonies win listing as endangered species.
With a listing comes more regulation. With more federal regulation comes restrictions on training. Restrictions on training make bases less useful. Less useful bases end up on closure lists. Closed bases aren’t good for the local economy.
Follow my logic? Folks at Fort Carson obviously don’t.
But maybe this story in the Sept. 8 Billings Gazette will help them see the long-term implications of that they're doing. Here's an excerpt:
Three groups ask feds to protect reintroduced ferrets
CHEYENNE - Three environmental groups say they are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets as endangered.
The federal government already protects black-footed ferrets as an endangered species. But it's a Catch-22: The protection doesn't apply to 17 reintroduced ferret populations in eight states, which are the only black-footed ferrets known to exist in the wild.
Instead of being endangered, they are considered "nonessential experimental" populations.
The groups WildEarth Guardians, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and Center for Native Ecosystems want three black-footed ferret populations - in western Arizona's Aubrey Valley, southwestern South Dakota's Conata Basin and southeast Wyoming's Shirley Basin - designated as endangered. The groups announced Tuesday that they had submitted an endangered species petition to the Fish and Wildlife Service . . .
. . . . Black-footed ferrets were believed to be extinct in the wild until a population turned up in Wyoming in 1981. The 18 animals remaining in that population soon were rounded up for a captive-breeding program.
Fish and Wildlife began releasing captive-bred ferrets in Wyoming's Shirley Basin in 1991. Subsequent populations have been established in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Kansas, South Dakota and Utah.
But only the Arizona, South Dakota and Wyoming populations in the endangered species petition are considered viable, said Erik Molvar, with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.”
Fort Carson’s ferret colony isn’t one of the “nonessential experimental” populations the groups want listed, so the base is in no great danger at the moment. But if this lawsuit succeeds, and if Fort Carson ferrets flourish, it won’t be too long before environmental groups are suing to have this colony listed too. That’s not necessarily the end of the world. A number of military facilities continue to function with endangered species on base. But the work-arounds can be costly and the encumbrances can be significant. It’s not something any base would want, much less invite.
It’s a little dated, but here’s a piece I did on the encroachment problem at American military bases back in 2001: link. I think it’s safe to assume things have gotten worse since then. Endangered Species Act rules have become a nightmarish fact of live at many facilities. But this is the first time I’ve seen a base actually courting such problems, thanks to such a stunning lack of foresight.
As the case of the Canada lynx shows, there’s a game of bait-and-switch being played when it comes to experimental populations of endangered species. The federal government promises that the normal regulations and regulations won’t apply at the time of reintroduction. But once the animals are established, and the listing petitions and lawsuits start flying, such agreements aren’t worth bupkis. Colorado agreed to host an experimental population of Canada Lynx back in the Bill Owens era, based on assurances that a tidal wave of new rules wouldn’t follow. But today you have “lynx habitat” being used by federal agencies as a reason to limit ski resort expansions and stop forest thinning projects. The old promises mean nothing. Colorado is being punished for showing the lynx a little compassion.
If Fort Carson commanders are smart, if folks in the Pentagon are smart, they’ll start looking for reasons to quietly back away from this animal rescue mission, which is unrelated and potentially detrimental to the facility’s main purpose. There are better places to put ferret colonies. And there are better uses for military bases.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Hunting for Sanity
A long-overdue culling of the federal wolf pack has begun in Idaho. Robert Millage of Kamiah was the first lucky hunter to turn in a tag, bagging an 80-pound female with a .243 rifle in the northern part of the state. "I guess it was the luck of the draw," Millage humbly said.
Though what he did was perfectly legal, and something that's necessary if the size of the burgeoning federal wolf pack is to be kept in check, Millage himself then became a target -- of loose-screw wolf-worshipers who live in a world of Disney-inspired nature fantasies, where man and beast happily coexist. But so it goes in the Rocky Mountain wolf wars. The only thing more vicious than wolves killing sheep is humans fighting over wolves.
If I seem to take delight in the kill, don't get me wrong. I'm not some bloodthirsty, kill-everything-that-moves nut, or a woodsman out to rescue Little Red Riding Hood. It's just that Idaho's wolf hunt signals the triumph of sanity over insanity, reason over unreasonableness, in the decade-long debate over how "wild" the "new West" can be. It means that against long odds, and an army of screaming green weenies, Western states are poised to begin responsibly managing wolf packs that were foist upon them by Washington against their will. And not a minute too soon, given the growing toll these animals are taking on Westerners.
From a recent edition of The Idaho Statesman:
"Kathy Konen has lost guard dogs to wolves in the past, but nothing prepared the Dillon (Montana) rancher for the killing of 120 buck sheep on their ranch last week. "They were in the sagebrush, on the creek bottom — just all over the pasture," Konen said Thursday during a telephone interview before heading up to check cattle. "It's a terrible loss to our livestock program . . .
. . . The total included 82 confirmed kills and 40 carcasses that were classified as probable kills, including some that had been eaten by bears. The attack occurred on private land the Konens own. "That's a lot all in one incident," Sime said.The sheep were just killed and yet the carcasses were almost all intact, Konen said. "They didn't eat what they killed, most of them were just brought down," she said. "I don't know whether they were teaching their pups or what."
It's not the first attack that the Konens have had this summer. They lost 26 sheep to wolves in the same pasture in July, she said. After that attack FWP authorized federal trappers to remove three wolves that had been observed in the area. Trappers shot and killed a gray coated wolf and shot another black one that got away but was believed to be mortally wounded. The third wolf, another black one, got away."
Though what he did was perfectly legal, and something that's necessary if the size of the burgeoning federal wolf pack is to be kept in check, Millage himself then became a target -- of loose-screw wolf-worshipers who live in a world of Disney-inspired nature fantasies, where man and beast happily coexist. But so it goes in the Rocky Mountain wolf wars. The only thing more vicious than wolves killing sheep is humans fighting over wolves.
If I seem to take delight in the kill, don't get me wrong. I'm not some bloodthirsty, kill-everything-that-moves nut, or a woodsman out to rescue Little Red Riding Hood. It's just that Idaho's wolf hunt signals the triumph of sanity over insanity, reason over unreasonableness, in the decade-long debate over how "wild" the "new West" can be. It means that against long odds, and an army of screaming green weenies, Western states are poised to begin responsibly managing wolf packs that were foist upon them by Washington against their will. And not a minute too soon, given the growing toll these animals are taking on Westerners.
From a recent edition of The Idaho Statesman:
"Kathy Konen has lost guard dogs to wolves in the past, but nothing prepared the Dillon (Montana) rancher for the killing of 120 buck sheep on their ranch last week. "They were in the sagebrush, on the creek bottom — just all over the pasture," Konen said Thursday during a telephone interview before heading up to check cattle. "It's a terrible loss to our livestock program . . .
. . . The total included 82 confirmed kills and 40 carcasses that were classified as probable kills, including some that had been eaten by bears. The attack occurred on private land the Konens own. "That's a lot all in one incident," Sime said.The sheep were just killed and yet the carcasses were almost all intact, Konen said. "They didn't eat what they killed, most of them were just brought down," she said. "I don't know whether they were teaching their pups or what."
It's not the first attack that the Konens have had this summer. They lost 26 sheep to wolves in the same pasture in July, she said. After that attack FWP authorized federal trappers to remove three wolves that had been observed in the area. Trappers shot and killed a gray coated wolf and shot another black one that got away but was believed to be mortally wounded. The third wolf, another black one, got away."
Here's another recent wolf kill story, in this case from Oregon. Such reports used to be rare. Today they appear regularly.
I'm not anti-wolf. I'm not opposed to "re-wilding" efforts when and where they make sense. But the federal wolf reintroduction program has gone from a laudable success to a looming menace, with wolf populations -- which are spilling over state borders and increasing by 20 percent per annum -- growing unmanageable. Livestock kills are steadily rising. Federal workers are running around the countryside, trying to babysit the animals. The effort to restore some textbook "natural balance" teeters in some places toward imbalance, as the wolves begin to eat their way through elk and deer herds. The "experiment" has gotten out of hand.
But rather than acknowledge a success and be reasonable, wildlife advocates have fought every effort to bring some sanity and discipline to the re-wilding effort. States have had to fight to get wolves delisted, fight to win the right to manage the animals, fight for the right to hold hunts. As program benchmarks have been reached and exceeded, animal activists have shifted the goal posts or attempted to change the rules, as in New Mexico and Arizona, where backers of the less-successful effort to reintroduce Mexican wolves (that's another blog post) are trying to end the three strikes rule on livestock-killers.
States that have (sometimes reluctantly) done their parts to make this effort work are now feeling double-crossed by animal advocates, who keep changing the rules of the game. I know most environmentalists are hopeless pessimists. But surely some of them must have given thought to what might happen if wolf numbers grew larger than what's practical in today's more densely-populated, heavily-recreated "new West."
Surely they knew that wolves would at some point have to be managed, just as deer, elk, bear, cougar and other species are managed, in order to keep the populations healthy while minimizing human-animal conflicts. Surely they don't really believe that managing the pack opens the door to another "war on the wolf," or that the feds would passively stand by as the states wipe the animals out?
This is the moment that separates reasonable and responsible wildlife advocates from the environmentally retarded and the complete kooks. And it's clear that the kooks are setting the agenda.
The Spokane (Wash.) Spokesman-Review had a balanced editorial on the subject, which included the following points:
"The hunting period opened Tuesday in the first two of Idaho’s 12 wolf management zones, and although more than 11,000 tags were sold, only three animals had been taken as the weekend approached. That’s hardly a slaughter, and it’s no indication that the impressive gains of the past 14 years are likely to be reversed.
Consider that the restoration effort began in Idaho with the import of 35 wolves. By 2007, the population was about 650; it’s now up to some 1,000. Federal authorities say that the wolf population throughout the Northern Rockies has exceeded the law’s goals every year since 2002.
Now that the animal has been delisted and its management turned over to the states, the law requires that the population be managed to stay above an absolute minimum of 100 animals with 10 breeding pairs, although the feds would start talking about relisting when the numbers dropped to 150 animals and 15 breeding pairs.
Even if all 220 allowed wolf kills happen this season, the surviving wolf numbers will be well above those figures, and Idaho officials know from experience that if they get careless in their duty, the feds won’t hesitate to step back in."
"It’s not the hunting that needs to come to an end now," the newspaper concludes, "it’s the litigation."
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Something Fishy This Way Comes
Call it "the Malkin Effect."
The American Contrarian got more traffic than normal recently -- much more -- thanks to the mention on Michelle Malkin's blog of a post I did about that scourge called The Endangered Species Act (thanks, Michelle). I enjoyed the lively exchanges that resulted.
What brings me back to the topic today is this excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the drought California is suffering not just for a lack of rain, but because of water restrictions mandated by the ESA. The delta smelt case was mentioned by a number of those who responded to my post on the misuses and abuses of the ESA. The Journal does an excellent job of telling the story, for those still unfamiliar with it.
California's Man-Made Drought
The green war against San Joaquin Valley farmers.
California has a new endangered species on its hands in the San Joaquin Valley—farmers. Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America's premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations.
The state's water emergency is unfolding thanks to the latest mishandling of the Endangered Species Act. Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channelled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched.
For this, Californians can thank the usual environmental suspects, er, lawyers. Last year's government ruling was the result of a 2006 lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other outfits objecting to increased water pumping in the smelt vicinity. In June, things got even dustier when the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that local salmon and steelhead also needed to be defended from the valley's water pumps. Those additional restrictions will begin to effect pumping operations next year.
The result has already been devastating for the state's farm economy. In the inland areas affected by the court-ordered water restrictions, the jobless rate has hit 14.3%, with some farming towns like Mendota seeing unemployment numbers near 40%. Statewide, the rate reached 11.6% in July, higher than it has been in 30 years. In August, 50 mayors from the San Joaquin Valley signed a letter asking President Obama to observe the impact of the draconian water rules firsthand.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that he "doesn't have the authority to turn on the pumps" that would supply the delta with water, or "otherwise, they would be on." He did, however, have the ability to request intervention from the Department of Interior. Under a provision added to the Endangered Species Act in 1978 after the snail darter fiasco, a panel of seven cabinet officials known as a "God Squad" is able to intercede in economic emergencies, such as the one now parching California farmers. Despite a petition with more than 12,000 signers, Mr. Schwarzenegger has refused that remedy.
The issue now turns to the Obama Administration and the courts, though the farmers have so far found scant hope for relief from the White House. In June, the Administration denied the governor's request to designate California a federal disaster area as a result of the drought conditions, which U.S. Drought Monitor currently lists as a "severe drought" in 43% of the state. Doing so would force the Administration to acknowledge awkward questions about the role its own environmental policies have played in scorching the Earth.
As the crisis has deepened, the political stakes have risen as well. In late August, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack came to the devastated valley to meet with farmers and community leaders. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has pledged to press the issue with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "There are 30 lawsuits on the biological opinions and two separate opinions, one for the smelt and one for the salmon," Ms. Feinstein said, "The rules need to be reconsidered."
The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a lawsuit on behalf of three farmers in the valley, calling the federal regulations "immoral and unconstitutional." Because the delta smelt is only found in California, the Foundation says, it does not fall under the regulatory powers provided by the Constitution's Commerce Clause. On a statutory basis, the Fish and Wildlife Service also neglected to appropriately consider the economic devastation the pumping restrictions would bring.
Things in California may have to get so bad that they endanger Democratic Congressional incumbents before Washington wakes up, but it doesn't have to be that way. Mr. Salazar has said that convening the God Squad would be "admitting failure" in the effort to save the smelt under the Endangered Species Act. Maybe so, but the livelihoods of tens of thousands of humans are also at stake. If the Obama Administration wants to help, it can take up Governor Schwarzenegger's request that it revisit the two biological opinions that are hanging farmers and farm workers out to dry.
There were many interesting and informative (and a few very funny) responses to my "Animal Crackers" post, but one stands out. It came from Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a great conservation biologist and true friend to endangered species who has paid a heavy price for asking hard questions about how the ESA functions, about the quality of science underpinning it, about whether the federal government is allocating limited conservation resources appropriately. For daring to ask these questions, Ramey became a target of the Eco-Inquisition -- the unholy alliance of professional alarmists, advocacy scientists and power-hungry bureaucrats that attempts to discredit, intimidate and silence anyone who challenges eco-orthodoxy on climate change, endangered species, etc. But in Ramey the green goon squad picked on the wrong guy, since he has the credentials, courage and strength of character to stand his ground.
Rob became a hero of mine for exposing the Preble's meadow jumping mouse hoax -- work that made him the target of the Eco-Inquisition. But that's a topic for another day.
Here's what he had to say:
Dr. Rob Roy Ramey said...
The ESA listing "surge" has begun. Next, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be requesting more funding for their endangered species program.
What we will not see, is any objective prioritization of conservation effort (money) on endangered "species" at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In other words: "Just send money and skip the accountability part." This absence of prioritization on endangered "species" is exactly what shortchanges conservation of bona-fide species that are highly unique and highly endangered. The United States allocates the majority of its endangered species budget to nondistinct but presumably threatened or endangered populations of common species (listed as Subspecies, Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS), or Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU)).
It is clear, however, that this conservation approach comes at the expense of many “full” species that are highly unique and that are far more endangered. Fully one-fifth of ESA-listed “species” are really subspecies or DPSs/ESUs, and these tend to be the most controversial and costly to "protect". The current proposal illustrates a similar lack of ESA prioritization: allocating listing effort to speciose taxa (many species in a genus) rather than highly unique taxa (one or few species in a genus), contrary to the 1982 amendments to the ESA. The proposal includes six species of milkvetch (genus Astragalus). Twenty-one species and subspecies of milkvetch are already listed in the west as threatened or endangered. There are a total of 614 species and subspecies of milkvetch listed on Natureserve.
Mr. Salazar, please take note."
Keep up the good fight, Rob.
And thank you for weighing in.
The American Contrarian got more traffic than normal recently -- much more -- thanks to the mention on Michelle Malkin's blog of a post I did about that scourge called The Endangered Species Act (thanks, Michelle). I enjoyed the lively exchanges that resulted.
What brings me back to the topic today is this excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the drought California is suffering not just for a lack of rain, but because of water restrictions mandated by the ESA. The delta smelt case was mentioned by a number of those who responded to my post on the misuses and abuses of the ESA. The Journal does an excellent job of telling the story, for those still unfamiliar with it.
California's Man-Made Drought
The green war against San Joaquin Valley farmers.
California has a new endangered species on its hands in the San Joaquin Valley—farmers. Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America's premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations.
The state's water emergency is unfolding thanks to the latest mishandling of the Endangered Species Act. Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channelled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched.
For this, Californians can thank the usual environmental suspects, er, lawyers. Last year's government ruling was the result of a 2006 lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other outfits objecting to increased water pumping in the smelt vicinity. In June, things got even dustier when the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that local salmon and steelhead also needed to be defended from the valley's water pumps. Those additional restrictions will begin to effect pumping operations next year.
The result has already been devastating for the state's farm economy. In the inland areas affected by the court-ordered water restrictions, the jobless rate has hit 14.3%, with some farming towns like Mendota seeing unemployment numbers near 40%. Statewide, the rate reached 11.6% in July, higher than it has been in 30 years. In August, 50 mayors from the San Joaquin Valley signed a letter asking President Obama to observe the impact of the draconian water rules firsthand.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that he "doesn't have the authority to turn on the pumps" that would supply the delta with water, or "otherwise, they would be on." He did, however, have the ability to request intervention from the Department of Interior. Under a provision added to the Endangered Species Act in 1978 after the snail darter fiasco, a panel of seven cabinet officials known as a "God Squad" is able to intercede in economic emergencies, such as the one now parching California farmers. Despite a petition with more than 12,000 signers, Mr. Schwarzenegger has refused that remedy.
The issue now turns to the Obama Administration and the courts, though the farmers have so far found scant hope for relief from the White House. In June, the Administration denied the governor's request to designate California a federal disaster area as a result of the drought conditions, which U.S. Drought Monitor currently lists as a "severe drought" in 43% of the state. Doing so would force the Administration to acknowledge awkward questions about the role its own environmental policies have played in scorching the Earth.
As the crisis has deepened, the political stakes have risen as well. In late August, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack came to the devastated valley to meet with farmers and community leaders. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has pledged to press the issue with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "There are 30 lawsuits on the biological opinions and two separate opinions, one for the smelt and one for the salmon," Ms. Feinstein said, "The rules need to be reconsidered."
The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a lawsuit on behalf of three farmers in the valley, calling the federal regulations "immoral and unconstitutional." Because the delta smelt is only found in California, the Foundation says, it does not fall under the regulatory powers provided by the Constitution's Commerce Clause. On a statutory basis, the Fish and Wildlife Service also neglected to appropriately consider the economic devastation the pumping restrictions would bring.
Things in California may have to get so bad that they endanger Democratic Congressional incumbents before Washington wakes up, but it doesn't have to be that way. Mr. Salazar has said that convening the God Squad would be "admitting failure" in the effort to save the smelt under the Endangered Species Act. Maybe so, but the livelihoods of tens of thousands of humans are also at stake. If the Obama Administration wants to help, it can take up Governor Schwarzenegger's request that it revisit the two biological opinions that are hanging farmers and farm workers out to dry.
There were many interesting and informative (and a few very funny) responses to my "Animal Crackers" post, but one stands out. It came from Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a great conservation biologist and true friend to endangered species who has paid a heavy price for asking hard questions about how the ESA functions, about the quality of science underpinning it, about whether the federal government is allocating limited conservation resources appropriately. For daring to ask these questions, Ramey became a target of the Eco-Inquisition -- the unholy alliance of professional alarmists, advocacy scientists and power-hungry bureaucrats that attempts to discredit, intimidate and silence anyone who challenges eco-orthodoxy on climate change, endangered species, etc. But in Ramey the green goon squad picked on the wrong guy, since he has the credentials, courage and strength of character to stand his ground.
Rob became a hero of mine for exposing the Preble's meadow jumping mouse hoax -- work that made him the target of the Eco-Inquisition. But that's a topic for another day.
Here's what he had to say:
Dr. Rob Roy Ramey said...
The ESA listing "surge" has begun. Next, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be requesting more funding for their endangered species program.
What we will not see, is any objective prioritization of conservation effort (money) on endangered "species" at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In other words: "Just send money and skip the accountability part." This absence of prioritization on endangered "species" is exactly what shortchanges conservation of bona-fide species that are highly unique and highly endangered. The United States allocates the majority of its endangered species budget to nondistinct but presumably threatened or endangered populations of common species (listed as Subspecies, Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS), or Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU)).
It is clear, however, that this conservation approach comes at the expense of many “full” species that are highly unique and that are far more endangered. Fully one-fifth of ESA-listed “species” are really subspecies or DPSs/ESUs, and these tend to be the most controversial and costly to "protect". The current proposal illustrates a similar lack of ESA prioritization: allocating listing effort to speciose taxa (many species in a genus) rather than highly unique taxa (one or few species in a genus), contrary to the 1982 amendments to the ESA. The proposal includes six species of milkvetch (genus Astragalus). Twenty-one species and subspecies of milkvetch are already listed in the west as threatened or endangered. There are a total of 614 species and subspecies of milkvetch listed on Natureserve.
Mr. Salazar, please take note."
Keep up the good fight, Rob.
And thank you for weighing in.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Animal Crackers
The Endangered Species Act to most Americans is just a law they've heard about, which might even give them a warm and fuzzy tickle deep inside. To many Westerners it's synonymous with tyranny -- an all-powerful presence that licenses the federal government to trample property rights, destroy jobs, obstruct energy development and restrict access to supposedly "public" lands, all to "protect" a subsegment of a subspecies that some graduate student says is rare.
It's the law that eco-Luddites use to dictate public lands policies and thwart any sort of development or economic activity they find objectionable. Discover a new natural gas field in the Rocky Mountain region and in no time flat, almost miraculously, a host of rare plants or animals -- all in dire need of protection -- will be discovered there. It's the silver bullet that can stop any infrastructure project: any roadway, dam, reservoir, power plant, pipeline. Even some "clean energy" projects -- the only kinds of energy projects eco-Luddites embrace -- are being stymied by the ESA. All you need to do is identify something allegedly rare living or growing in the targeted project's vicinity and -- voilà! -- you have a reason to say "no."
So whenever most Westerners read about the latest list of species, subspecies, or "distinct population segments" proposed for ESA protections, they greet the news with dread, not delight. It only evokes glee among federal biocrats (biologist-bureaucrats), who will see their power and budgets enhanced when the listings (and the regulatory controls that come with them) take place, and among eco-Luddites and their lawyers, who will use the listings to destroy jobs, drive up energy costs and thwart progress.
"Twenty-nine species in more than 20 states -- from a rare beach-dwelling plant in Yellowstone National Park to a caddis fly in Nebraska -- may need federal protections to avoid extinction, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," reports the Associated Press. "Fourteen of the 29 species appear in Utah, including 10 plant species and a small silvery minnow called the Northern leatherside chub. The agency said Tuesday that 20 plants, six snails, two insects and a fish may warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act."
This stems from a 2007 listing petition made by WildEarth Guardians, which proposed more than 200 new species for protection, most of them in the West. The Fish and Wildlife Service rejected 165 of the candidates and delayed a decision on 38. But the listing of even 29 new species could have profound impacts on Westerners -- and on non-Westerners who get their energy from Western sources -- depending on where the species are found.
Here are the species that made the cut (each of which is of course critical to the survival of the planet):
PLANTS
Yellowstone Sand Verbena in Wyoming
Ross' bentgrass in Wyoming
Hamilton milkvetch in Colorado and Utah
Isely milkvetch in Utah
Skiff milkvetch in Colorado
Precocious milkvetch in Wyoming
Cisco milkvetch in Utah
Schmoll milkvetch in Colorado
Fremont County rockcress in Wyoming
Boat-shaped bugseed in Colorado
Pine springs cryptantha in Arizona, Utah
Weber whitlowgrass in Colorado
Brandegee's wild buckwheat in Colorado
Frisco buckwheat in Utah
Ostler's peppergrass in Utah
Lesquerella navajoensis in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah
Flowers pentemon in Utah
Gibben's beardtongue in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming
Pale blue-eyed grass in North Dakota, Oregon, Washington
Frisco clover in Utah
MOLLUSKS
Frigid ambersnail in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Bearmouth mountainsnail in Montana
Byrne Resort mountainsnail in Montana
Longitudinal gland pyrg in Nevada, Utah
Hamlin Valley pyrg in Utah
Sub-globose snake pyrg in Utah
INSECTS
Platte River caddis fly in Nebraska
Meltwater lednian stonefly in Montana
FISH
Northern leatherside chub in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming
That you've never heard of these plants and animals is irrelevant. That they may seem laughably insignificant, or may seem related to one another (like the 5 or 6 types of milkvetch included), and that their names may sound funny -- none of this matters under the ESA. That some of these aren't actually species, but subspecies of subspecies, also doesn't matter. Such judgments must be left to myopic federal biocrats, who can't see the implications of anything beyond what's on the microscope, and for whom cost-benefit analysis is an alien concept.
All creatures are created equal in the eyes of the ESA, meaning the Meltwater lednian stonefly is as worthy of protection as the bald eagle or a grizzly bear, no matter the cost to taxpayers, no matter the consequences for land owners. It's arrogant species-centrism to argue that some animals are more worthy of federal protection than others. Noah didn't discriminate; we can't either.
This is the insanity of an environmental law run wild. Yet few in Washington have the courage to admit that it's gotten completely out of control, lest they face the wrath of the Environmental Anxiety Industry. And non-Westerners in Congress have little reason to call for ESA reform, since the law's costs and consequences weigh relatively lightly (at least for now) on their constituents.
Past administrations have tried to slow the listing process down a bit, arguing that USFWS was financially and logistically swamped by the species-related work already on its plate. Much of what the agency should be spending on protection it instead spends on lawyers, to deal with the dozens of ESA-related lawsuits going at any one time. But it's doubtful the Obama administration will show any similar restraint when it comes to listing decisions, given the strong political ties it has to Gang Green.
Budget limitations aren't a reason for the agency not to act under this president. Bureaucratic inertia is the only hope Westerners have of slowing the regulatory deluge that threatens. This is one case in which federal red tape, "analysis paralysis" and the natural lethargy of the leviathan might actually be a blessing.
It's the law that eco-Luddites use to dictate public lands policies and thwart any sort of development or economic activity they find objectionable. Discover a new natural gas field in the Rocky Mountain region and in no time flat, almost miraculously, a host of rare plants or animals -- all in dire need of protection -- will be discovered there. It's the silver bullet that can stop any infrastructure project: any roadway, dam, reservoir, power plant, pipeline. Even some "clean energy" projects -- the only kinds of energy projects eco-Luddites embrace -- are being stymied by the ESA. All you need to do is identify something allegedly rare living or growing in the targeted project's vicinity and -- voilà! -- you have a reason to say "no."
So whenever most Westerners read about the latest list of species, subspecies, or "distinct population segments" proposed for ESA protections, they greet the news with dread, not delight. It only evokes glee among federal biocrats (biologist-bureaucrats), who will see their power and budgets enhanced when the listings (and the regulatory controls that come with them) take place, and among eco-Luddites and their lawyers, who will use the listings to destroy jobs, drive up energy costs and thwart progress.
"Twenty-nine species in more than 20 states -- from a rare beach-dwelling plant in Yellowstone National Park to a caddis fly in Nebraska -- may need federal protections to avoid extinction, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," reports the Associated Press. "Fourteen of the 29 species appear in Utah, including 10 plant species and a small silvery minnow called the Northern leatherside chub. The agency said Tuesday that 20 plants, six snails, two insects and a fish may warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act."
This stems from a 2007 listing petition made by WildEarth Guardians, which proposed more than 200 new species for protection, most of them in the West. The Fish and Wildlife Service rejected 165 of the candidates and delayed a decision on 38. But the listing of even 29 new species could have profound impacts on Westerners -- and on non-Westerners who get their energy from Western sources -- depending on where the species are found.
Here are the species that made the cut (each of which is of course critical to the survival of the planet):
PLANTS
Yellowstone Sand Verbena in Wyoming
Ross' bentgrass in Wyoming
Hamilton milkvetch in Colorado and Utah
Isely milkvetch in Utah
Skiff milkvetch in Colorado
Precocious milkvetch in Wyoming
Cisco milkvetch in Utah
Schmoll milkvetch in Colorado
Fremont County rockcress in Wyoming
Boat-shaped bugseed in Colorado
Pine springs cryptantha in Arizona, Utah
Weber whitlowgrass in Colorado
Brandegee's wild buckwheat in Colorado
Frisco buckwheat in Utah
Ostler's peppergrass in Utah
Lesquerella navajoensis in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah
Flowers pentemon in Utah
Gibben's beardtongue in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming
Pale blue-eyed grass in North Dakota, Oregon, Washington
Frisco clover in Utah
MOLLUSKS
Frigid ambersnail in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Bearmouth mountainsnail in Montana
Byrne Resort mountainsnail in Montana
Longitudinal gland pyrg in Nevada, Utah
Hamlin Valley pyrg in Utah
Sub-globose snake pyrg in Utah
INSECTS
Platte River caddis fly in Nebraska
Meltwater lednian stonefly in Montana
FISH
Northern leatherside chub in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming
That you've never heard of these plants and animals is irrelevant. That they may seem laughably insignificant, or may seem related to one another (like the 5 or 6 types of milkvetch included), and that their names may sound funny -- none of this matters under the ESA. That some of these aren't actually species, but subspecies of subspecies, also doesn't matter. Such judgments must be left to myopic federal biocrats, who can't see the implications of anything beyond what's on the microscope, and for whom cost-benefit analysis is an alien concept.
All creatures are created equal in the eyes of the ESA, meaning the Meltwater lednian stonefly is as worthy of protection as the bald eagle or a grizzly bear, no matter the cost to taxpayers, no matter the consequences for land owners. It's arrogant species-centrism to argue that some animals are more worthy of federal protection than others. Noah didn't discriminate; we can't either.
This is the insanity of an environmental law run wild. Yet few in Washington have the courage to admit that it's gotten completely out of control, lest they face the wrath of the Environmental Anxiety Industry. And non-Westerners in Congress have little reason to call for ESA reform, since the law's costs and consequences weigh relatively lightly (at least for now) on their constituents.
Past administrations have tried to slow the listing process down a bit, arguing that USFWS was financially and logistically swamped by the species-related work already on its plate. Much of what the agency should be spending on protection it instead spends on lawyers, to deal with the dozens of ESA-related lawsuits going at any one time. But it's doubtful the Obama administration will show any similar restraint when it comes to listing decisions, given the strong political ties it has to Gang Green.
Budget limitations aren't a reason for the agency not to act under this president. Bureaucratic inertia is the only hope Westerners have of slowing the regulatory deluge that threatens. This is one case in which federal red tape, "analysis paralysis" and the natural lethargy of the leviathan might actually be a blessing.
Friday, February 20, 2009
The Cat's Paw
Not so long ago, if the manager of a federal forest in Colorado tried to halt expansion of a ski resort, or to put the kibosh on a timber thinning project, by arguing that these actions might damage lynx habitat, he or she would have been laughed out of the room. That's because there were no lynx in Colorado, not so long ago.
But the state made a terrible mistake seven if eight years back, by agreeing to play host to an experimental colony of lynx, as part of a reintroduction effort. It seemed a reasonable compromise at the time: We'll do something to see if lynx can be restored to the Southern Rockies (which is the edge of their historic range), if the feds won't use that against us later, by pounding us with the regulatory sledge hammer called the Endangered Species Act.
The experiment held out promise not just for the cats -- who have done reasonably well after a rough start -- but for the possibility of a more reasonable application of this notoriously rigid law. But it was probably destined to blow up in our face, since there can be no compromise with environmental extremists, and with some federal regulators, once they have the bludgeon of the ESA at their disposal.
So now we in Colorado, as a reward for our good deed, are being punished, by seeing lynx habitat used as a reason to block this or that use of public lands, in violation of the agreement we thought we had with the feds. Not only is lynx habitat being raised as a possible objection to ski resort expansion, but it's being used to obstruct forest restoration projects designed to remove diseased stands and reduce the wildfire threat.
Instead of celebrating the day these wonderful animals were returned to the state, and demonstrating that a little flexibility and reasonableness from Washington can encourage cooperation instead of conflict, many Coloradans are kicking themselves for being such schmucks. Instead of a blessing, the cats are becoming a curse.
But so it goes with the Endangered Species Act.
But the state made a terrible mistake seven if eight years back, by agreeing to play host to an experimental colony of lynx, as part of a reintroduction effort. It seemed a reasonable compromise at the time: We'll do something to see if lynx can be restored to the Southern Rockies (which is the edge of their historic range), if the feds won't use that against us later, by pounding us with the regulatory sledge hammer called the Endangered Species Act.
The experiment held out promise not just for the cats -- who have done reasonably well after a rough start -- but for the possibility of a more reasonable application of this notoriously rigid law. But it was probably destined to blow up in our face, since there can be no compromise with environmental extremists, and with some federal regulators, once they have the bludgeon of the ESA at their disposal.
So now we in Colorado, as a reward for our good deed, are being punished, by seeing lynx habitat used as a reason to block this or that use of public lands, in violation of the agreement we thought we had with the feds. Not only is lynx habitat being raised as a possible objection to ski resort expansion, but it's being used to obstruct forest restoration projects designed to remove diseased stands and reduce the wildfire threat.
Instead of celebrating the day these wonderful animals were returned to the state, and demonstrating that a little flexibility and reasonableness from Washington can encourage cooperation instead of conflict, many Coloradans are kicking themselves for being such schmucks. Instead of a blessing, the cats are becoming a curse.
But so it goes with the Endangered Species Act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)