The Associated Press
The bald eagle was brought back from near-extinction with the help of the Endangered Species Act.

Environmentalists fear time, money are not on their side

Private interests, conservative lawmakers tip scales, many say

The Associated Press

Originally published Sunday, February 24, 2002

WASHINGTON -- It's been a struggle since 1973 when the Endangered Species Act was enacted: the interests of plants and animals versus those of the businesses and land owners that sometimes threaten them.

Now, environmentalists fear those private interests, backed by conservative lawmakers and a Republican administration, are starting to win out.

The concern is not over whether the law itself is endangered, but how it's implemented. Environmentalists say science, habitat protections, recovery programs and funding are being neglected in places around the country.

"Low budgets, weak implementation," said Mitch Friedman, executive director of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance. "It costs time, and endangered species don't have time."

Roughly 1,250 plants and animals have been listed as threatened or endangered since the law took effect. While seven species have gone extinct, 13 no longer need protection, and some, like the bald eagle, have been brought back from the brink of extinction.

But some property owners and business interests say the law creates a costly, unfair and burdensome bureaucracy that can cost them their livelihoods

Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Association in Battleground, believes the act is only popular among people who don't realize how it affects those who rely on the land. He said some landowners are so frustrated with the law that they take matters into their own hands: "The shoot, shovel and shut up philosophy."

Criticizing the law

Meanwhile, some Western Republicans are not missing a chance to criticize the law.

Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., blamed confusion over salmon protections for the deaths of four firefighters in Washington last summer.

A Forest Service investigation concluded that while some water drops on the fire were delayed over confusion about whether to take water from a stream where the protected fish swim, it did not cause the firefighters' deaths. Endangered species law guidelines specifically put human life above wildlife protections.

McInnis and Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, also recently seized upon claims that wildlife biologists planted Canadian lynx fur with fur samples taken from two Washington forests in an apparent attempt to expand lynx protections under the act to forests where lynx don't actually live.

The study is under investigation to determine whether the Forest Service employees were simply testing the ability of the lab to recognize lynx fur, as the scientists claim, or whether they falsified data.

Mark Pfeifle, spokesman for Interior Secretary Gale Norton, said there are no plans to change the Endangered Species Act, but the administration is looking at new programs and funding to work with local interests and protect wildlife.

Habitat protections

Another administration plan is a decision to review, and in some cases set aside, so-called "critical habitat" protections for up to 10 endangered species in the West. Those restrictions require anyone who needs federal funding or building permits in the protected habitat to get the Fish and Wildlife Service's blessing.

The agency says it is trying to comply with legal requirements to consider the economic impact of the restrictions, but environmentalists worry the reviews will eliminate many of the protections provided under the Endangered Species Act.

Alarms about inadequate protections and recovery efforts are also being sounded over creatures ranging from the Mississippi gopher frog to the grizzly bear.

Environmentalists worry Norton is backing away from a Clinton-era plan to reintroduce grizzly bears in parts of Idaho and Montana.

Pfeifle said the decision is still under review, but the Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated this one project would cost $2 million in the first five years -- more than the budget to recover the grizzlies in four other parts of the country combined.

Industry and property rights groups say the Bush administration has requested $126 million for endangered species in its budget, which is not much different from President Clinton's budget requests.

But their opponents say Clinton spent more money on land management plans designed to help species before they were listed as endangered, which the government is now neglecting.

Roadless rule

Chris Wood, a former Forest Service official, points to the agency's roadless rule, a Clinton administration ban on most logging and road-building on an area more than twice the size of Ohio. A judge temporarily blocked it, and the Bush administration launched a review.

While the rule covers 2 percent of the country's land, a quarter of all endangered and sensitive species are likely to live in those forests, Wood said.

"With the Endangered Species Act, it's a pay me now or pay me later game," said Wood, now with Trout Unlimited. "You can spend the money up front to prevent the species from being listed, or you can spend vast sums more later" to protect them under the act.

But the Bush administration and industries that use timber, minerals and other assets from federal lands criticize the Clinton-era plans and, in some cases, the science that led to them.

Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, said the Clinton administration gave federal biologists a blank check and didn't hold them accountable.

"We need to do a better job," he said. "I don't know of anything that is being reversed, but hard questions are being asked."

Environmentalists again worry about what that may mean.

In an independent review requested by the Interior Department, the respected National Academy of Sciences recently concluded there was no scientific basis for wildlife agencies to cut off irrigation water to farmers last year to protect the threatened and endangered fish in the Klamath Basin, located on the Oregon-California border.

Bart Semcer, Sierra Club associate Washington representative, believes the academy was asking the wrong question.

"The question should have been did the agency use the best available science," as required under the Endangered Species Act, not whether the science was adequate, he said. The administration is "trying to undermine public confidence in our agencies that conserve our natural resources."

The Olympian Copyright 2002

back to Critters index