All of our nasty little rumbles with environmental fanatics over the dunes pretty much boil down to one very badly written Endangered Species Act. This year there will be several reform bills re-submitted that didn't make it through last year and some new ones that may have a better chance this year. Here's one.
TWO ITEMS OF GOOD NEWS:
ONE: Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming has introduced excellent legislation to require scientific evidence that a species be threatened before it can be proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. It is bill number S.369.
Here are portions of his announcement of S.369:
"It is evident to me that the current system is broken and the good intentions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been stretched beyond rationality," Thomas said. "If I wanted to put the goldfish on the list, I could start the petition today. My bill will begin to provide order, making the ESA more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities, and state governments."
The Thomas bill "establishes minimum requirements for a listing petition, including: an analysis of the status of the species; its range; population trends and threats, and if sufficient biological information exists to support a recovery program. S.369 would give a more substantial role to the states and general public in determining which species are endangered.
Thomas said the listing of particular species should be a scientific decision based on credible data. The Senator pointed to the current situation, calling it a "post card" petition, where any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support.
Thomas' legislation requires that each listing be supported by sound science and need. While recovery is the ultimate goal of the ESA, under current law it is virtually impossible to delist a species. There is no certainty in the process, and the state that has all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list is a not true partner in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed, according to Thomas.
Full Version: ESA reform
Here's what he said when presenting it:
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the “Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2003.” The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. Today, I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. In 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire, devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings regarding the handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the “known range” as opposed to the alleged “historical range” of the mouse. Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse’s historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the state was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes to the Endangered Species Act are desperately needed.Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I’ve lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I’ve logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my state over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival.
Mr. President, my legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-reviewed. Right now, it’s basically a “postage stamp” petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
In Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?
Mr. President, this ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or a private citizen's development of their own property is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species?
Mr. President, this legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, that person should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require.
Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de-listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process, and the state who has all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed.
Wyoming’s experience with the Grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We’ve been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this issue to no avail. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.Mr. President, the point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. The changes I’ve suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let’s not lose sight of the real goal-recovery and delisting.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the “Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2003.” The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. Today, I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. In 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire, devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings regarding the handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the “known range” as opposed to the alleged “historical range” of the mouse. Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse’s historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the state was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes to the Endangered Species Act are desperately needed.Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I’ve lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I’ve logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my state over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival.
Mr. President, my legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-reviewed. Right now, it’s basically a “postage stamp” petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
In Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?
Mr. President, this ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or a private citizen's development of their own property is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species?
Mr. President, this legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, that person should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require.
Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de-listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process, and the state who has all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed.
Wyoming’s experience with the Grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We’ve been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this issue to no avail. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.Mr. President, the point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. The changes I’ve suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let’s not lose sight of the real goal-recovery and delisting.
I went to the Crowly off-road page and got a link to my reps. The wicked witches of the West Boxer & Fienstien and e-mailed them urgeing them to support S. 369 Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2003. I encourage everyone to do it! 
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Just wondering. Since this legislation, if it becomes law, could directly impact your future OHV opportunites at Glamis, I was wondering how many of you take the time to write/call your representatives? I know those of you in CA don't think you have a chance to change our Senator's minds, but the least you could do is drop them a quick note.
And how about calling your representative in the house? Ask him/her to introduce similar legislation. I called mine and it is really easy. Don't expect to talk to the head honcho. Just ask for the staff member that deals with environmental issues. Talk to them. You would be surprised how receptive they can be to your comments when you know the issues firsthand (which all of you should).
This is the best environment for change in the ESA we've ever had in Washington. We cannot afford to miss the boat on this.
If you don't know how to contact your representatives, go to:
www.congress.org or
www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
Jon
And how about calling your representative in the house? Ask him/her to introduce similar legislation. I called mine and it is really easy. Don't expect to talk to the head honcho. Just ask for the staff member that deals with environmental issues. Talk to them. You would be surprised how receptive they can be to your comments when you know the issues firsthand (which all of you should).
This is the best environment for change in the ESA we've ever had in Washington. We cannot afford to miss the boat on this.
If you don't know how to contact your representatives, go to:
www.congress.org or
www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
Jon
Environmentalists Challenge Endangered Species Act Reforms
Monday, February 17, 2003
Associated Press
CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Conservationists are challenging U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas' proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act.
Thomas, R-Wyo., wants to make it more difficult to petition for a species to be protected under the federal law. He introduced his "Endangered Species Listing and Delisting Process Reform Act of 2003" last week.
Thomas' proposal would establish minimum requirements for a listing petition, including an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. It requires that each listing be supported by sound science and seeks to make it easier to delist a listed species.
Jeff Kessler, conservation director of the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance in Laramie, said Thomas is trying to weaken the Endangered Species Act. He challenged whether Thomas could find any examples of species being easily listed.
"Take this out of the rhetorical realm and show some real examples," he said.
Thomas' implication that scientific data is not used in listing endangered species is "just flat wrong," Kessler said.
The best way to improve the Endangered Species Act is to increase funding for helping endangered species recover and get federal agencies, particularly land agencies, to follow environmental protection laws, he said.
In addition, Kessler said, leaders in Washington need to make a serious commitment to save endangered species.
Under Thomas' proposal, the secretary of Interior also would determine if sufficient biological information exists to support a recovery program. Thomas' proposal would give a more substantial role to the states and general public in determining which species are endangered.
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78802,00.html
Monday, February 17, 2003
Associated Press
CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Conservationists are challenging U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas' proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act.
Thomas, R-Wyo., wants to make it more difficult to petition for a species to be protected under the federal law. He introduced his "Endangered Species Listing and Delisting Process Reform Act of 2003" last week.
Thomas' proposal would establish minimum requirements for a listing petition, including an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. It requires that each listing be supported by sound science and seeks to make it easier to delist a listed species.
Jeff Kessler, conservation director of the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance in Laramie, said Thomas is trying to weaken the Endangered Species Act. He challenged whether Thomas could find any examples of species being easily listed.
"Take this out of the rhetorical realm and show some real examples," he said.
Thomas' implication that scientific data is not used in listing endangered species is "just flat wrong," Kessler said.
The best way to improve the Endangered Species Act is to increase funding for helping endangered species recover and get federal agencies, particularly land agencies, to follow environmental protection laws, he said.
In addition, Kessler said, leaders in Washington need to make a serious commitment to save endangered species.
Under Thomas' proposal, the secretary of Interior also would determine if sufficient biological information exists to support a recovery program. Thomas' proposal would give a more substantial role to the states and general public in determining which species are endangered.
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78802,00.html
On 2/12/03 S. 369 was Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Here are the Committee Members:
James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma
James M. Jeffords, Vermont
John W. Warner, Virginia
Max Baucus, Montana
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Harry Reid, Nevada
George V. Voinovich, Ohio
Bob Graham, Florida
Michael D. Crapo, Idaho
Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Barbara Boxer, California
John Cornyn, Texas
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
Thomas R. Carper, Delaware
Craig Thomas, Wyoming
Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York
Wayne Allard, Colorado
Make sure you tell Boxer that you want her to support it!
Here are the Committee Members:
James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma
James M. Jeffords, Vermont
John W. Warner, Virginia
Max Baucus, Montana
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Harry Reid, Nevada
George V. Voinovich, Ohio
Bob Graham, Florida
Michael D. Crapo, Idaho
Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Barbara Boxer, California
John Cornyn, Texas
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
Thomas R. Carper, Delaware
Craig Thomas, Wyoming
Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York
Wayne Allard, Colorado
Make sure you tell Boxer that you want her to support it!
QUOTE
Thomas' proposal would establish minimum requirements for a listing petition, including an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. It requires that each listing be supported by sound science and seeks to make it easier to delist a listed species
Imagine that, the environmentalist being against something that would use sound judgment and science. As we all know, insidious and emotional outcrys are far more acurate! :roll2: These idiots never end to amaze me! :shocked:
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
QUOTE
As we all know, insidious and emotional outcrys are far more acurate!
you're proof of that!!
Can you PROVE that to be true, or are you having another emotional outburst? :dis: :.(. :shocked: :shock:
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Here's a new page for all of you that want to be more knowledgeable in regards to the history of ESA reform:
http://www.crowley-offroad.com/endangered_..._act_Reform.htm
I hope Pombo and/or Walden kicks in with a bill too. Pombo is now chair of the House Resources Committee, so this could be our chance.
Jon
http://www.crowley-offroad.com/endangered_..._act_Reform.htm
I hope Pombo and/or Walden kicks in with a bill too. Pombo is now chair of the House Resources Committee, so this could be our chance.
Jon
Just reading one of the green websites about amendments to the ESA. They want to make sure that the gov't "Use the best available science to plan for recovery", but they mention nothing about using best available science at any other time. We want to make sure that the best available science is used all the time.
Hypocrits.
Jon
Hypocrits.
Jon
BlueSky, you little mouse, STFU!
Bluesky, why would you and your kind be afraid of using science to determine listing on the ESA? What are you afraid of, besides having the sky fall???
RoostKing...
Bluesky, why would you and your kind be afraid of using science to determine listing on the ESA? What are you afraid of, besides having the sky fall???
RoostKing...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.