Newspaper column: New endangered species rule falsely maligned

When the Interior Department released new rules for enforcing the 45-year-old Endangered Species Act (ESA) this past week, self-styled environmentalists and many in the news media falsely maligned the changes, saying they would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider economic impact in deciding whether to list a species as endangered or threatened.

In fact, the press release announcing the finalizing of the new rules specifically states that designations will be based solely on the “best available scientific and commercial information” as the original law dictates. The change simply allows the public to be informed of economic impacts created by the law by removing the phrase “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.”

The rule change proposal noted, “Since 1982, Congress has consistently expressed support for informing the public as to the impacts of regulations in subsequent amendments to statutes and executive orders governing the rulemaking process.” The only change is giving the public more information.

“The best way to uphold the Endangered Species Act is to do everything we can to ensure it remains effective in achieving its ultimate goal — recovery of our rarest species. The Act’s effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation,” said Interior Secretary David Bernhardt in the press release. “An effectively administered Act ensures more resources can go where they will do the most good: on-the-ground conservation.”

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto reacted on Twitter: “Trump’s gutting of the Endangered Species Act — even as species struggle with the effects of the #ClimateCrisis & human activity — threatens protected species & could put even more plants and animals at risk.”

The rule changes actually should help address a fundamental problem with the enforcement of the ESA up until now — that it focuses almost entirely on limiting any conceivable profitable use of land or water that is “critical habitat” of an endangered or threatened species, thus maintaining a fragile status quo rather than actually encouraging recovery of the species population.

The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), which refers to itself as the home of free market environmentalism, reports that more than 1,600 species are listed under the ESA, but only 39 species have been determined to be recovered since the law passed (half of those mistakenly listed in the first place), while 11 have become extinct. Nevada has 16 endangered species and 11 threatened.

Previously, when states tried to reintroduce endangered species by breeding, the federal government threatened to sue, saying possession of the species required a federal permit, which it refused to issue.

Another significant change requires that when designating critical habitat that the species is actually present or the area has features essential to the species’ conservation.

This addresses issues raised by a Supreme Court case out of Louisiana in which the owner of 1,500 acres of land was prohibited from using the property because it was declared critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, even though none of the frogs had been seen in the area for 50 years and the land itself could no longer support the frogs.

The case was finally settled in July in the property owner’s favor. 

Mark Miller, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation which sued on behalf of the landowners, said of the agreement, “This federal frog feud is over, and property rights and good government win. The government tried to ban development of 1,500 acres of private property at a cost of $34 million in the name of an endangered frog that does not live on the property and cannot survive there. The feds may as well have labeled this Louisiana property critical habitat for a polar bear. It would have done just as much good.”

Also, in the future a species listed as threatened would not be treated as stringently as those listed as endangered, as currently is the case. 

Advocates of the changes say this will provide incentives for landowners to help species recover. In the past, landowners confronted with restrictions under the ESA were said to have been incentivized to shoot, shovel and shut up. No species. No restrictions. 

“Our interest is getting this landmark wildlife protection law to work better,” said PERC’s executive director Brian Yablonski in a statement. “That means fostering conditions so landowners become more enthusiastic in their role as stewards for species recovery, not worried if they find an endangered species on their land. States and landowners will respond better to carrots, not clubs, in our efforts to improve species recovery results.” 

Delisting of species is preferable to merely maintaining the status quo in perpetuity.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Editorial: Modifications to Endangered Species Act overdue

Canadian lynx (USFWS pix via PERC)

It is about time.

A few weeks ago the Interior Department announced proposals to modify the way it enforces the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to make the law a bit less onerous for private businesses and land owners. The agency is currently accepting comments on its proposals.

One of the proposals is to remove the phrase “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.” Listings of species as endangered or threatened would still be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” The change simply allows the public to be informed of potential impacts on the economy.

“Since 1982, Congress has consistently expressed support for informing the public as to the impacts of regulations in subsequent amendments to statutes and executive orders governing the rulemaking process,” the proposal states.

The law currently defines a “threatened species” as “any species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The proposal is to more specifically define what the “foreseeable future” is on a case-by-case basis. Self-styled environmentalists would define the “foreseeable future” as any remote risk at any time in the future.

The proposal seeks to better define “critical habitat.” In the past the federal land agencies have sought to block such things as farming, grazing, logging, recreational uses and mineral exploration on land deemed “critical habitat” for the dusky gopher frog in Louisiana and the Canadian lynx in Colorado, though neither species had been spied in those areas for decades.

The agency further proposes to better define when, why and how a species might be delisted.

The Property and Environment Research Center, which refers to itself as the home of free market environmentalism, reports that currently 1,623 species are listed under the act, but only 39 species have been determined to be recovered since the law passed, while 11 have become extinct.

The environmentalists rage against the modest changes claiming the law has successfully kept 98 percent of listed species from going extinct, while others focus on the fact only 2 percent have been recovered, largely due to the fact enforcement in the past has only been aimed at blocking human endeavors and little or nothing has been done to actually increase the population.

According to an article in PERC’s magazine, Colorado wildlife agencies took it on their own to reintroduce several endangered fish and the Canadian lynx, both successfully.

“The federal government threatened to sue to stop the state’s recovery efforts, claiming that even possession of endangered species — much less raising them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild — was prohibited without federal permits,” the magazine reported. “And the government did not want to permit our hatchery or any restocking program.”

When the state threatened to hold press conferences exposing opposition to species recovery efforts, the agency backed down rather than be shown to be hypocritical about “protecting” species.

Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming has a draft bill that would require species recovery plans and give states more leeway in conservation efforts. Democrats are almost universally opposed, apparently preferring to allow nature to take its course, even if that means 98 percent of species remain listed and economic endeavors are blocked in perpetuity.

We support the modest Interior Department changes to the regulatory language, as well as Barrasso’s bill to actually do something about species recovery.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.