Brian J. Kennedy
Some of America's so-called environmental organizations are running huge deficits in rational explanations for defending the failed Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, so some have resorted to (or continued) running shameless advertisements like the following:
Using these scare tactics, of
course, is much easier than defending the fact that the ESA has only recovered
10 - or less than 1% - of
the species on its list after more than three decades of implementation.
It's probably even harder for them to defend that the fact that 60% of all
listed species are either "declining" or in "unknown"
status. (Yes, they're either dying off or we have no idea how they're
doing.) And believe it or not, 3% are actually "believed to be
extinct."
The (not so) bright side of things
is that 6% are "improving" and the remaining third of all species
are classified as "stable." But this "stable" status
doesn't necessarily reflect successes of the ESA. Instead, it is usually
the result of corrections to original data error. (As in, "Oops - just
found a million of them - guess these critters aren't really
endangered."). *Data
from
Nonetheless, most of the
environmental community will tell you the ESA has been 99% successful.
(Yes, even when presented with the above statistics.)
Why? "Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the
tenets of environmentalism are all about belief," is how author and M.D. Michael
Crichton might explain it.
But not all environmental
organizations are completely out to lunch and/or driven solely by fundraising
and partisan politics.
The
Peregrine Fund, for
example, is actually dedicated to species recovery. Unlike enviro-lobbyists
who litter Capitol Hill with silly graffiti, The Peregrine Fund is a hands-on
and non-political environmental
organization - one of the few that has played a key role in the successful
recovery and delisting of an endangered species. While other groups tell
you how the ESA "has worked" from their offices inside the Beltway,
the Peregrine Fund will tell you how its practical application in the field
must change to make it a truly effective law.
According to the Fund's president,
the current ESA is often unnecessarily bureaucratic, punitive and inhibitive
of real species recovery efforts. Click
here to read what he believes must be done to improve it for species
recovery.
When you're finished, re-read the bipartisan
Threatened
and Endangered Species Recovery Act (TESRA) of 2005, note that
it has 70-plus cosponsors from 30 states around
the country, and ask yourself why certain groups calling themselves
"environmental" are on the wrong side of updating a 33 year-old law
and improving its abysmal rate of species recovery. Perhaps they "enjoy"
all the conflict it causes now.
# # #
Brian
J. Kennedy
Communications
Director
House
Committee on Resources
(202)
226-9019