I jumped over to Onodowahgah's blog tonight, and was distressed to read about the federal government's on-going attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act. It used to be a legislative-led fight when the champion anti-ESA man, Congressman Richard Pombo was in office. But he's gone now.
And thank goodness for that. No joke. Of all the election news I listened to last November, the only thing that made me do a spontaneous happy dance in my living room was hearing that Pombo's re-election efforts had failed. His links to Abramoff may have been his most publicized problems but, for me, having him as the Chair of the House Resources Committee was the most distasteful thing in the world. A happy dance, I tell you. You can ask my mom, she was visiting at the time. I don't think she quite understood the reason for the happy dance. That man was toxic.
So, he is out. And now it seems the push to weaken the Act is coming from the federal agency itself. The federal agency and the Department of the Interior. The Department with a Secretary of the Interior appointed by President Bush. And, as Onodowahgah states, former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles became the highest ranking Bush administration official to be convicted of a crime in the Abramoff corruption scandal.
Onodowahgah has a link to a Seattle Times piece. And that article links to another one at Salon.
This is not the time to be weakening our nation's environmental legislation. And it seems like a majority of the public agrees with that.
And it's not like the Fish and Wildlife Service has been able to list a ton of new species every year anyway. They would need huge increases in their federal budget allocation to employ enough staff to do the work it takes to list species and draft recovery plans in the first place. And they are not going to get that! How many federal departments got huge increases in their budget this year? Besides the Department of Defense? (I actually have those numbers printed out back home and was working on that blog topic. So, I'll have specific numbers for you when I get back home) Anyway, the point is, if there is not enough staff to do the work, it doesn't matter what their legislative mandate is. I've heard Army Corps of Engineers staff tell a room full of public officials and private consultants not to expect timely processing of their wetland delineation verifications and permits. Not because they didn't want to do their job. Not because they didn't want to protect wetlands. But simply because they did not have the staff to do the work. The ESA doesn't need to be gutted, the way this administration is (not) handing out money to agencies to do their job.
Regardless, if there are officials and staff people who honestly believe the new draft regulations are not scientifically sound, or are politically motivated, let's hope they will speak up publicly.
And, in the spirit of being even-minded, here is my chide to environmentalists - STOP SUING EVERYTHING! Not only is the Fish and Wildlife Service hindered by lack of funds from the federal budget, their money is draining away by fighting lawsuit after lawsuit. Now, I don't know each and every lawsuit that is being filed. Some may be of the utmost necessity. But I've worked in a field where the environmental work I have labored on has been legally challenged (or threatened with legal challenge). Sometimes, they are challenged in the name of the environment. And that is a joke. They have been challenged for labor reasons, for monetary reasons, and for racist reasons. I can tell when someone who speaks against something is really sincere about the actual physical environmental consequences. And I can tell when they are not. It's not rocket science, it's human nature. I can't believe that every single lawsuit brought against the Fish and Wildlife Service is truly pure of earthly heart. So, think about that long and hard, Sierra Club, when you suit up to sue. I'm a card-carrying member, but I don't like supporting non-vital litigation.
There are ways to respect property-owners rights without gutting this Act. There are ways to leave some decisions up to the States without gutting this Act. There are less ways to protect vanishing species that are vital to the ecological well-being of this country if you gut this Act.
