Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Scientists want politics kept out of endangered species decisions

Some 1,293 scientists sent a letter (pdf) this week to each and every U.S. senator urging them not to support any endangered species legislation that is based on politics rather than science. "As scientists with expertise in biological systems," the letter reads, "we are writing to urge you to vote against any legislation that would undercut the use of best available science as the basis for adding or removing any particular species from the protection of the Endangered Species Act." The letter, sent under the aegis of the Union of Concerned Scientists, follows recent political moves to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupis) from the endangered species list as well as other similar actions making their way through the legislative process. The document was signed by scientists from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and two U.S. territories. "If any one species is taken off the endangered species list by Congress, then all of the species on the list become vulnerable to future political attacks," said wildlife ecologist Franz Camenzind, one of the signatories, in a prepared statement. "This would send the implementation of the Endangered Species Act into chaos, creating uncertainty both for species and for the communities and businesses around them."Other attempts to legislate endangered species based on political decisions include a bill from Rep. Joe Baca (D–Calif.) that would limit Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection to 15 years, a period in which species could either recover or on its expiration no longer be safeguarded; legislation from Rep. Don Young (R–Alaska) to remove polar bears from the ESA; and spending bills in both houses of Congress to end water-use restrictions put in place to protect endangered species in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta...more

Sure they do - just like they kept politics out of the science of global warming.

The passage of the ESA was a political act, committed by politicians. Why would they expect any amendments to the act to not be political?

In his 1972 message to Congress President Nixon said, "...even the most recent act to protect endangered species, which dates only from 1969, simply does not provide the kind of management tools needed to act early enough to save a vanishing species. In particular, existing laws do not generally allow the Federal Government to control shooting, trapping, or other taking of endangered species." So he proposed legislation to make those federal offenses, along with other changes that became the ESA.

Do they really think this wasn't political? Did Richard Nixon do anything that wasn't political? Pure, raw politics passed the act and any amendments will be undertaken in the same atmosphere, no matter what the scientists say.

Let's not forget in that same message to Congress Nixon also proposed Nation Land Use Planning. He stated, "A new maturity is giving rise to a land ethic which recognizes that improper land use affects the public interest and limits the choices that we and our descendants will have. Now we must equip our institutions to carry out the responsibility implicit in this new outlook. We must create the administrative and regulatory mechanisms necessary to assure wise land use and to stop haphazard, wasteful, or environmentally damaging development."

Think of the mess we would be in today if that had passed too.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The "scientists" can see the wave coming that will wash their politically based "science" out to sea. May that time come soon!!