
ESA:
Too Broke to Fix?
By
Marion
, Unfiltered
3-29-07
The Endangered Species
Act was written in 1973 with the idea of protecting plants and animals
that seemed to be in danger of totally disappearing. It sounded good,
but like many things government, it was way too broad in scope and way
too loose in controls and limits. It was obviously something written by
lawyers to allow other lawyers to make their own interpretation. The
following are what I see as the ESA’s core problems:
Problem 1: No real
guidelines for listing or delisting
To date close to 2000 species have been listed, only a handful have been
delisted, including three Australian kangaroos, the eastern, western
grey, and red. The
Great Lakes
wolves are also listed as
being delisted, although I don’t believe that is actually effective
until later this summer. Nineteen species have been removed due to
having been listed in error due to erroneous information. I could not
find the cost of listing and “reintroducing” these species, but I
suspect none cost less than $1 million, and probably several million. We
need to know how that could happen and the rules need to be more
specific. If species are erroneously listed as a result of environmental
lawsuits, then the groups forcing the lawsuits should be required to
reimburse the total costs to the government, the state, and the
individuals paying the cost of dealing with that species.
Rules have changed to
accommodate the desire to list a species. In 1982 when the first wolf
recovery plan was presented, it was pointed out that there were abundant
wolves in
Canada
just north of the target
states. They were not only not endangered, they were already
recolonizing in the target states. The non-essential experimental (10j)
was written to allow reintroducing species to habitat outside of their
range. It also absolved the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from
liability if native inhabitants were harmed or removed.
A definite delisting
criteria is not a part of listing and it needs to be. Using wolves as an
example, the goal population is a minimum of 400 percent, but it’s not
enough for environmental groups whose lawsuits drive the whole movement.
Such ethereal comments as “we don’t trust the states to protect them
well” are driving hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the
taxpayers and individual states.
The ESA must include
absolute delisting criteria as a part of the listing criteria.
Problem 2: No way of
tracking costs, needs transparency
It is virtually impossible to determine either the individual species
cost or total cost of the ESA, but the Property and Environment Research
Center (PERC) is estimating up to 2.4 billion per year. What are we
getting for our money? Not much, since it takes 20 years or more,
evidently, to get a species to delisting and that depends on lawsuits.
Gray wolves in the
Great Lakes
took 40 years despite many
wolves for approximately 20 years.
Problem 3: No way to
mitigate negative impact to other species
Each listed species is considered in a vacuum. Models of potential
impact are a part of the listing document, but there can be no
modification of the listed population, per law, to mitigate excessive
actual impact. Other species are not monitored by specific guidelines.
An example is the reintroduction of the Grey Wolf to
Yellowstone
National Park
, where only the Northern elk herd is regularly monitored. The herd
has decreased by approximately 70 percent, instead of the 6 to 30
percent predicted. There are no continuing monitoring studies that I can
find of moose, big horn sheep, black bears, or other
Yellowstone
elk herds. There is no study of diseases carried by listed
species and the effects on other species in the area.
Wolves are another
example of this. This fall an elk shot by a hunter was found to be
infected by a tapeworm, Echinococcus granulosus, that is normally
carried by wolves. How widespread is this? Will it have an overall
negative impact on other wildlife? Can it spread to livestock? We
don’t know, and apparently there is no mechanism for finding out or
dealing with a severe outbreak.
Problem 4: Inadequate
planning and follow up
All plans are to include an estimate of time and cost that will be
involved, though most do not include this vital information
This
link is to
a Government Accountability Office study that evaluates the plans and
their ability to meet criteria for listing and delisting species. The
following is a summary of some of the study’s findings:
“Almost all of the 107
recovery plans we reviewed have two of the three key elements identified
in the act, but few include the third element. First, we found that all
of the plans we reviewed include site-specific management actions,
although the level of specificity varies greatly. Some plans contain
many detailed actions; while others contain fewer, higher level actions.
In instances where little is known about the species, the focus of
site-specific management actions is often on research and data
gathering. Second, almost all of the 107 plans we reviewed include time
and cost estimates for implementing site-specific management actions;
four plans did not contain this information, but stated that doing so
was not practicable. In contrast, only five of the 107 plans we reviewed
included the third element—recovery criteria that address all five
delisting factors. Twenty-three plans either state why providing
recovery criteria was not practicable or indicate that the species is
thought to be extinct or not recoverable. An additional 57 plans include
some recovery criteria but do not evidence consideration of all five
delisting factors. The remaining 22 plans do not include any recovery
criteria for delisting and do not state why providing such criteria was
not practicable.”
Problem 5: Costs of
restorations being imposed on individuals and states targeted for
listing a species
The initial costs are borne by all American taxpayers, but impacts to
private property and its use by endangered species is borne by
individuals. And worse, they could face legal problems if individuals
should use their property in a manner not acceptable for the species.
These individuals receive no reimbursement for the loss of their
property use and must continue to bear the burden.
Once a species is
“proposed for delisting” the state is responsible for the costs from
then on. States with very small populations—my state of
Wyoming
, for instance, at a half
million residents—are burdened unfairly for projects approved by a
majority of non-residents who can easily out vote them.
My suggestions
First, develop an ESA division of FWS, and appropriate a certain amount
of money for it every year. This money would be available to maintain
all species declared endangered, threatened, or non-essential,
experimental. It would also be available to put more species on the list
and provide the funding for restoring them, but all of the costs would
be mandatory from that fund. Private property owners would be fully
reimbursed for the loss of use of their property. States would not be
responsible individually for the costs.
Second, include the
absolute listing and delisting criteria in the plan at the beginning. No
lawsuits, no arguments. When the criteria is met the species would be
delisted. In order to continue it as endangered a whole new listing
process would be required. The savings in lawsuit costs would probably
pay for some of these species and cut the overall costs.
Third, require
organizations filing lawsuits to force listing of a species to post a
bond equal to the expected costs of restoring the species. This would be
forfeited if the species was listed in error.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/esa_too_broke_to_fix/C147/L38/
|