Monday, May 3, 2004
ANOTHER VIEW: ESA scandal
A Denver zoologist whose work has called into question the validity of a
threatened species listing for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse testified
before Congress last Wednesday. But his revelations concerning the creature's
true genetic blueprint — it's indistinguishable from mice found in abundance
elsewhere, raising potentially scandalous questions about the process leading
to a federal listing — wasn't all that was on Rob Roy Ramey's mind.
The top zoologist at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science offered a
startlingly candid critique of the sometimes slipshod science underlying the
nation's most powerful environmental law, the Endangered Species Act — a
point underscored last week when the professor whose work led to the animal's
listing admitted he had erred in declaring it a distinct sub-species, based on
examinations of only three mice.
Wednesday's hearing before the House Resource Committee concerned H.R. 2933, a
bill sponsored by California Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat, that's aimed at
reforming the way the federal government designates "critical
habitats" under ESA. The policy of setting aside potentially huge swaths
of land for the almost exclusive use of federally protected species, whether
or not they actually can be found there, is undoubtedly the most contentious
and questionable part of the law. It imposes potentially huge costs on
communities and private property owners, often based on the flimsiest
scientific justifications and economic impact studies.
That's where Ramey's testimony comes in. "While the ESA is in need of
updating to keep pace with the tools of science, I see a more fundamental
problem with the application of the ESA, one that has become a major source of
controversy and litigation," he said. "That is the wide latitude for
interpretation of what constitutes best available science in making ESA
decisions. There can be a substantial disconnect between accepted scientific
standards and how science is used in decisions regarding endangered species
management."
Ramey especially questioned the adequacy of peer reviews conducted in
connection with the ESA. "It has been my experience with the USFWS peer
review process that a document may carry the claim of being peer reviewed but
the peer reviews were less than ideal," he said.
And he said he thought better science would help reduce the increasingly
costly and counterproductive barrage of litigation that accompanies virtually
every listing or habitat designation."
Ramey then posed a question of particular importance: What recourse do
citizens have when they've been the victims of federal regulators acting on
bad science? He pointed out that his discovery of the mouse's true taxonomy
occurred six years after it was federally listed, and one year after critical
habitat was designated. The reforms currently being proposed are valuable, he
said, but do not address situations in which the facts become known only after
costs and consequences have been imposed. These are questions, Ramey said,
that "should be asked before listing petitions are considered."
Such critiques were reinforced last week by an admission of error by the
University of Arizona professor chiefly responsible for the animal's listing.
Dr. Philip Krutzsch acknowledged his mistakes, as well as the validity of
Ramey's findings, in an e-mail included as part of Wednesday's hearing. That
prompted calls for a quick de-listing of the mouse by Sen. Wayne Allard.
It will likely be months before U.S. Fish and Wildlife reaches a decision
about de-listing the mouse. But if the care and attention to detail currently
being put into the de-listing process had been taken all along, this
outrageous misuse of federal power could have been avoided.
Source:
http://www.vvdailypress.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1083589192,4525,
Colorado Springs Gazette
