|
|
|
The Endangered Species Act works to protect the vanishing plant and animal species of the United States, on the premise that if the environment we manipulate cannot support those species that were here before Europeans arrived, a danger signal is raised, and actions are needed to enhance *our* environment so that it is healthy for all. It has served to reduce pollution and expand natural habitats for all, based on the test most significant to ourselves - survivability.
9 responses total.
The following Bill has been entered in the U.S. Senate: > 104th CONGRESS > 1st Session > S. 191 > > To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure that > constitutionally protected private property rights are not infringed > until adequate protection is afforded by reauthorization of the Act, to > protect against economic losses from critical habitat designation, and > for other purposes. > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES > > January 11 (legislative day, January 10), 1995 > > Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. > Nickles) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and > referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > A BILL > > > > To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure that > constitutionally protected private property rights are not infringed > until adequate protection is afforded by reauthorization of the Act, to > protect against economic losses from critical habitat designation, and > for other purposes. > > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the > United States of America in Congress assembled, > > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > > This Act may be cited as the ``Farm, Ranch, and Homestead > Protection Act of 1995''. > > SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON DETERMINATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES AND > THREATENED SPECIES AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT. > > Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. > 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: > ``(4) Moratorium.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (3), > during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this > paragraph and ending on the effective date of the first > subsequent reauthorization of this Act, the Secretary may not-- > ``(A) determine that a species is an endangered > species or a threatened species under paragraph (1); or > ``(B) designate habitat of a species to be critical > habitat under paragraph (3).''. > > SEC. 3. AGENCY ACTIONS. > > Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. > 1536(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: > ``(5) Moratorium.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through > (4), during the period beginning on the date of enactment of > this paragraph and ending on the effective date of the first > subsequent reauthorization of this Act, a Federal agency shall > not be required to comply with paragraphs (1) through (4).''. > <all>
The attack upon the Endangered Species Act has begun in the 104th Congress. This Act, which has brought back the Bald Eagle and the Alligator from near extinction in the continental US, and has led to the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park and in Idaho, has been a thorn in the side of "property rightists", who seek personal financial gain from their temporary occupancy of land, at the cost of diminishment of the natural environment for everyone. The Endangred Species Act, of course, has actually affected very little private land use, since most species are not endangered. However, here and there, the issue arises. Those affected, however, think that everyone should be denied the existence *permaneently* of those species that inconvenience their temporary land use, without regard for their descendents, who might not have the same idea, nor for the land we share with other species. The sponsors of this act cynically call it the "Farm, Ranch and Homestead Protection Act". On that basis, the Endangered Species Act should be renamed the "Human Protection Act", as preserving environments that can accomodate all species helps ensure that we preserve an environment that protects our species.
Has this already been voted on and passed, Rane? If so, how do I find out who voted which way? I want to make sure to not vote for any perp that voted for this.
I've been trying to find out. Something was done with a moritorium on related regulations - but it hasn't been heavily in the newes. I''ll try to find out.
The following commentary appeared in the July/August 1995 SIERRA:
"Stacking the Deck for Extinction - Congress holds its kangaroo (rat)
court"
"As a hostile Congress rushes to judgement on the Endangered Species
Act, truth and fairness are as much at risk as condors and manatees. At
blatantly stacked "hearings" held in natural-resource-dependent rural
districts throughout the country this spring, a congressional task force
systematically solicited unverified, anecdotal evidence from opponents of
the act, while simultaneously excluding scientists, environmentalists,
government officials, and anyone else whose views did not support its
preordained conclusion.
"The 'fast track' of ESA revision was mandated by House Resources
Committee Chair Don Young (R-Alaska), who wanted to gather testimony from
'real people' (i.e., not environmentalists or scientists) affected by the
law. Under normal circumstances, such hearings would be conducted by the
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceanic Subcommittee, headed by Representative
Jim Saxton (R-N.J.). But since Saxton *supports* the Endangered Species
Act, Young created a new body headed by Richard Pombo (R-Calif) that
includes many of the most anti-environmental voices on Capitol Hill.
"Since Pombo's 'task force' is not a regular congressional subcommittee,
it does not consider itself bound by the usual rules of balance and
decorum. At the April 29 hearing in Stockton, California, for example,
Pombo stood by while grade-school kids working to protect the endangered
fairy shrimp were booed and heckled by a hostile crowd of Central Valley
farmers. (Of 25 invited witnesses at the Stockton hearing, only 4 were in
favor of the ESA.) At the hearing in Belle Chasse, Louisiana,
Representative Wes Cooley (R-Ore.) even threated a pro-ESA witness from
the Louisiana Wildlife Federation: 'Don't come to Oregon,' Cooley warned,
'cause you'll be in trouble.' The task force purposely avoided hearings in
urban areas with strong ennvironmentalist presences, seeking out instead
rural districts where Wise Use forces were strongest. Even so, at many
hearings supporters of the ESA still outnumbereed opponents - at least in
the audience.
"It was a different story on the invitation-only panel. At Belle Chasse,
where the ESA hearing was combined with a hearing on wetlands regulation,
John Chaconas of St. Amant, Louisana, was abruptly disinvited when Pombo
heared that he planned to testify in support of regulation, rather than
against it. Pombo's confusion was understandable, since his colleague
Billy Tauzin (D-La) had been promoting Chaconas as a victim of government
'arrogance.' In the testimony he was prevented from giving, however,
Chaconas blamed his problems on *lack of enforcement* of wetlands policy:
'The fact is my family and I have been played as pawns by politicians to
justify their opposition to current wetlands law,' read Chaconas' prepared
statement. 'If existing policies and regulations had been enforced I would
not need to be here today.'
"After their labors, task force members adjourned to dine at Armand's in
New Orleans' French Quarter - courtesy of the Louisana Farm Bureau
Federation, Midcontinent Oil and Gas Association, the American Sugar Cane
League, and the Louisana Land and Exploration Company. A week later, after
a hearing in the middle of cattle country in Boerne, Texas, Pombo's posse
was feted by the Texas Cattle Feeders Association, the Texas Sheep and
Goat Raisers, the San Antonio Farm and Ranch Real Estate Board, and the
Texas Association of Builders.
"So determined was the task force to avoid expert testimony that it
cancelled a previously scheduled meeting in the Maryland district of Wayne
Gilchrest (the only pro-ESA Republican on the task force) after
discovering that he had invited Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson and Atlanta
Zoo director Terry Maple. Pombo's explanation for calling off the meeting
was that the hearings were intended to be restricted to 'ordinary
Americans' (a group including Leighton Steward, chair of the Leighton Land
and Exploration Co., one of the 400 largest companies in the country, who
testified at Belle Chasse). 'Dr. Terry Maple doesn't look like a scary
guy,' the _Atlanta Constitution_ later editorialized, 'but the
well-respected director of Zoo Atlanta apparently frightens some people
nearly to death.'
"Wherever Pombo's task force went, it was met by large crowds of
environmentalists, including hundreds of Sierra Club activists, who had
their say to the media if not to their elected representatives. Even some
task force members were distressed by the flagrant lack of fairness and
balance. 'There has been no effort to be objective.' declared
Representative Bruce Vento (D-Minn.), the panel's strongest
environmentalist voice. 'I find the whole process offensive and a waste of
time.'
"'I have never seen so many people afraid of information in my life,
[or] so extravagantly funded by interest groups that stand to make a lot
of money from misinformation,' Gilchrest told the _Baltimore Sun_. 'To
throw the whole thing out without even knowing what you've lost, that's
the tragedy of this.'
- Paul Rauber
[# Call or write your representative and senators in support of a strong
Endangred Species Act, and ask President Clinton to veto any weakened
version.]
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 14:06:23 -0500
From: LISA YEE <YEE@nwf.org>
Subject: ACTION: RESPONSE TO BAD ESA EDITORIAL IN DETROIT NEWS
On Mon. November 27, 1995, the Detroit News published a scathing editorial
on the Endangered Species Act. The unrelenting criticisms of the ESA and
the call to support the Young-Pombo ESA bill in the House (which is as
unfriendly to endangered species as the 104th Congress could dream of)
almost made me blow a gasket.
I am including the text of the editorial and WOULD LIKE TO ASK THOSE OF
YOU COMPELLED TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN RESPONSE. I have also
included NWF's fact sheet on the bad Young-Pombo ESA bill so you'll have
specifics to include in your letters. The more letters we send in, the
more they are likely to print. Please send me a copy of your letter as
well. THANKS!
--Lisa S. Yee
National Wildlife Federation
Endangered Species Program
506 E. Liberty, 2nd Floor
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2210
Ph: (313)769-6960
Fax: (313)769-1449
1. FAX REPSONSES TO # BELOW
2. FOLLOW UP WITH A CALL TO URGE THEM TO PRINT YOUR LETTER
(AND TO MAKE SURE THEY RECEIVED IT)
Thomas Bray
Detroit News
Editorial Page Editor
Fax: (313)222-6417
Ph: (313)222-2292
*****************************************************************
The Detroit News (Mon. Nov. 27, 1995 Editorial Page)
The Endangered Species Act
Reform of the Endangered Species Act, bane of property owners everywhere,
now rides on the courage of Congress to defy the environmental lobby.
Opposition to reform is fierce because the green agenda absolutely depends
on the government controlling privately owned "habitat." But the law does
little to save species. It does much, however, to kill jobs, waste money
and violate fundamental liberties.
For 22 years, the act has compelled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
spare no expense in saving all the species from extinction. On the
average, 40 new listings have been added annually, but only 22 species
actually have been delisted. Of those, seven were declared extinct and
nine were removed due to listing error. The six considered "saved" likely
would have rebounded without any help from Washington, experts say.
The failures of the law aren't hard to fathom. The act embraces the
scientifically dubious notion that all species can and should be saved
from extinction--disobeying eons of natural history. The law's punitive
approach may actually speed up extinction. No rational landowner dares
risk the uncompensated loss of property, a criminal fine or jail term by
alerting authorities to the presence of endangered species on his or her
property.
Congress earlier this year imposed a listing moratorium. More substantive
reform awaits floor action, having won approval last month by the House
Resources Committee.
A bill sponsored by Reps. Don Young, R-Alaska, and Richard Pomob,
R-Calif., emphasizes incentives to protect wildlife--for example, payments
or land exchanges for property owners who set aside cruicial habitat. A
companion bill would establish tax incentives for species preservation.
The bill also would require the government to pay compensation when the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations devalue private property by 20
percent or more. And proposed listings would have to undergo scientific
peer review. Meanwhile, federal lands would be set aside to preserve
unique habitat.
Most important, the bill narrows regulators' overly broad interpretation
of "harm," ameliorating a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. ESA
restrictions and penalties would only apply to the direct killing or
wounding of a protected species, not mere use of its habitat. The
government no longer could seize private lands in the name of preserving
trees, grass, sand, wetlands and all the other "ecosystems" upon which
"biodiversity" supposedly depends.
All of which infuriates environmentalists, whose catechism regards
government control of all habitat as sacred. But there is nothing
environmentally friendly about a law that doesn't work. The Endangered
Species Act drains valuable environmental resources by ignoring the
relationship between cost and benefit. Nor is the campaign to save
species helped by punishing landowner cooperation. Lawmakers' rightful
claim to environmentalist credentials demands their support of the
Young-Pombo bill.
********************************************************************************
*******
OPPOSE YOUNG AND POMBO'S ATTEMPT TO
UNRAVEL THE ESA'S ESSENTIAL PROTECTIONS
H.R. 2275, "The Endangered Species Conservation and Management Act of
1995" introduced by Reps. Young and Pombo, has been passed out of
Committee and is proceeding to the floor of the House of Representatives.
This bill would unravel the Endangered Species Act's protections of
imperiled species and ecosystems and force the U.S. taxpayer to pay
billions for new bureaucracy and wasteful entitlement programs for
landowners.
** ALLOWS THE SECRETARY TO CHOOSE EXTINCTION
The Young-Pombo bill (Sec. 501) would end this Nation's longstanding
commitment to ensuring that our great diversity of fish, wildlife and
plant species is passed to future generations. Under the bill, the
Secretaries of Interior and Commerce would no longer be required to
attempt to recover imperiled species. Instead they could choose, without
any public input, a "conservation objective" that involves nothing more
than prohibiting direct "take" -- an approach which would mean certain
extinction for the hundreds of species, such as the Florida panther, that
are declining due to habitat destruction.
** PAYS OFF LANDOWNERS FOR COMPLYING WITH STEWARDSHIP OBLIGATIONS
The Young-Pombo bill contains "takings" language (Sec. 101) that would
create a huge new entitlement program for anyone who complies with the
ESA. Under the Young-Pombo bill, the ESA could not be enforced to prevent
a landowner from destroying spawning habitat relied upon by endangered
salmon and by thousands of downstream commercial and recreational anglers
-- unless the landowner is paid off by the government for any profits that
it might have earned from the destructive activity. This "takings"
provision would produce a flood of speculative claims, requiring a massive
new federal bureaucracy to handle.
** ELIMINATES ESSENTIAL HABITAT PROTECTIONS
The Young-Pombo bill (Sec. 202) would overrule the recent Sweet Home court
decision by redefining a prohibited "take" to exclude habitat destruction.
This would eliminate one of the basic habitat protections of the ESA, thus
ignoring the recommendations of the recent National Academy of Sciences
report on the ESA, which emphasized the need for putting in place strong
habitat protections in order to save imperiled species.
** IMPOSES COSTLY BUREAUCRACY AND DELAY
In a transparent effort to delay listings indefinitely, the Young-Pombo
bill (Sec. 302) calls for peer review of all listing decisions, regardless
of whether they are the subject of any real scientific dispute. Imperiled
species and ecosystems would decline further during the unwarranted delay
in implementing ESA recovery efforts.
** SHRINKS PROTECTION OF HABITAT ON PUBLIC LANDS
With a nice Orwellian twist, the bill purports to create a "National
Biological Diversity Reserve" (Sec. 601) while drastically reducing
protection of biodiversity on public lands. Under the Young-Pombo bill
(Sec. 401), existing habitat protections on millions of acres of national
forests and Bureau of Land Management lands could be overidden by other
statutory goals such as "multiple use" for mining, grazing and timber
harvesting.
** UNDERMINES THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
Under the Young-Pombo bill (Sec. 401), Section 7 of the ESA would no
longer ensure that federal agencies consult regarding the destructive
impacts of their activities and devise "win-win" solutions that reduce
impacts while allowing projects to go forward. Federal activities that
destroy species and their habitats would go forward simply because a
deadline for completing consultation has been missed -- creating enormous
pressure for missed deadlines and avoidance of the consultation
requirement.
** ELIMINATES PROTECTIONS OF SPECIES WITH CAPTIVE-BRED POPULATIONS OR
WITH POPULATIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
The Young-Pombo bill would eliminate protection of species with healthy
populations in hatcheries or zoos (Sec. 301), thus ignoring the scientific
consensus that captive-bred populations cannot substitute for populations
in the wild. It would also eliminate the ESA's protection of species with
populations in Canada or Mexico (such as salmon, gray wolves and grizzly
bears), thus ignoring the scientific consensus that distinct population
segments of species must be protected to ensure long-term viability. (Sec.
902 and 301).
** AUTHORIZES "INCIDENTAL" KILLING OF MARINE MAMMALS, SEABIRDS, SEA
TURTLES AND OTHER NON-FISH SPECIES IN THE TERRITORIAL SEAS
A new ESA exemption in the Young-Pombo bill (Sec. 201) would authorize
unlimited "incidental take" of non-fish species in the territorial seas.
Among other species, this could mean extinction for numerous species of
sea turtles, which survive today only because of "incidental take"
restrictions placed on the shrimping industry in the Gulf of Mexico.
****************************
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP
****************************
1. Call and write to your Representative and ask them to oppose H.R. 2275,
the Young-Pombo ESA reauthorization bill! Have your group set up an ESA
letter writing table or phonebanking event.
PHONE: (202)224-3121 (CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD)
ADDRESS: The Honorable (full name), U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C. 20515
2. Set up a meeting with each of your Representative in his/her local
office--tell him/her in person that you want endangered species
protections kept strong [Call or e-mail me for a FREE copy of NWF's guide
to Setting Up a District Lobby Visit & For a FREE list of your Federal
Representatives for your state (including addresses of their local
offices) (313)769-6960 E-mail: yee@nwf.org].
3. Write a letter to the Editor of your local paper using this fact sheet
to show your disdain for the Young-Pombo ESA bill--this is a great way to
get the word out to thousands in your community [Call or e-mail me for a
sample letter to the editor you can use--same as above].
PLEASE KEEP ME POSTED. . . on what you/your group does to help by letting
me know how many calls and letters you generate to your Representative. It
is very helpful for me to know.
Drop me a line: Lisa S. Yee, NWF, 506 E. Liberty, 2nd Floor,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2210.
Ph: (313) 769-6960 Fx: (313) 769-1449 E-mail: yee@nwf.org
Ten years later Pombo is at it again: The House has just passed a bill
desexing ("emasculating" is sexist) the Endangered Species Act. Here are
the Michigan delegation's votes:
(Info on the act at http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000297.php)
Against the bill ("for" endangered species):
Stupak, Bart; Michigan, 1st (D)
Ehlers, Vernon J.; Michigan, 3rd (R)
Kildee, Dale E.; Michigan, 5th (D)
Upton, Fred; Michigan, 6th (R)
Schwarz, John J.H. "Joe"; Michigan, 7th (R)
Levin, Sander M.; Michigan, 12th (D)
Kilpatrick, Carolyn C.; Michigan, 13th (D)
Conyers, John; Michigan, 14th (D)
Dingell, John D.; Michigan, 15th (D)
For the bill ("against" endangered species):
Hoekstra, Peter; Michigan, 2nd (R)
Camp, Dave; Michigan, 4th (R)
Rogers, Mike; Michigan, 8th (R)
Knollenberg, Joe; Michigan, 9th (R)
Miller, Candice S.; Michigan, 10th (R)
McCotter, Thaddeus G.; Michigan, 11th (R)
Note the solid partisan opposition.
The vote by endangered species was not recorded.
Right. And, in case you didn't notice, the sky is falling.
It may be where you are, but it is in place around here.
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss