More than one to blame on ESA rulings reversal

November 30, 2007
Capital Press
Editorial

Farmers might find themselves endangered after politics, science and lawsuits have all played their role in a fiasco involving endangered species.

This week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it has reversed seven rulings connected to endangered species that involved senior interior department official Julie MacDonald. She resigned last May after the department concluded that scientists had been pressured by her to change their findings on endangered species and also leaking information to industry officials.

Farmers and ranchers should be watching carefully what rulings are being overturned and how it will affect them. Legal and agricultural organizations in the West had lobbied MacDonald as they worked for the best interests of farmers.

For a long time, the agricultural community has argued there are major flaws with the Endangered Species Act and how listings occur. They have demanded that listings be based on science, rather than politics and pressure from special interest groups.

Too often, they have been the victim rather than the victor when it came to ESA listings and rulings.

However, some scientists and environmental groups have accused the Bush administration - and MacDonald - of manipulating and misrepresenting ESA findings for political reasons and continued their challenges.

They will feel vindicated after this week's announcement that affects species such as the white-tailed prairie dog and the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Earlier decisions by the agency have now been reversed, and other cases being reconsidered include the Hawaiian picture-wing fly, the Arroyo toad, and the California red-legged frog.

No one should be surprised that there is heavy politics and lobbying affecting ESA decisions. Agricultural officials aren't the only ones who play the game. One can only imagine all the pressure applied by lobbyists for environmental groups or other special interest organizations.

Another factor that must be examined is the role of lawsuits on the ability of agencies and their employees to do their jobs properly.

In 2004, an interior department official testified before a Senate subcommittee on fisheries, wildlife and water, about how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "has been embroiled in a relentless cycle of litigation over its implementation of the listing and critical habitat provisions of the act." The official added "The service now faces ... serious difficulties due not to agency inertia or neglect, but to a lack of scientific or management discretion to focus available resources on the listing actions that provide the greatest benefit to those species in greatest need of conservation."

She went on: "These lawsuits have subjected the service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. Consequently, the service has little ability to prioritize its activities to direct resources to listing program actions that would provide the greatest conservation benefit to those species in need of attention."

Perhaps that is one of the biggest problems, beyond the usual politics and lobby efforts. The courts and endless lawsuits are not just dictating ESA policy, but keep the agency from doing a better job.

The person who explained and warned about this in 2004? Julie MacDonald.

Yes, ESA rulings must be based on sound science, not politics. But until politicians can make needed changes to the ESA, there will continue to be battles in courts, special interest groups and agricultural representatives will continue to fight, and people like MacDonald will feel an obligation to get involved beyond what is politically or legally acceptable.

The ultimate losers won't be just the endangered species that deserve protection, but agricultural landowners and others who are also caught in the mess.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=75&Sub

SectionID=767&ArticleID=37212