Good Post
Check out the article below summarizing a recent oversight hearing on the implementation of the ESA. The webcast of the hearing is excellent, no doubt this topic has become extremely polarized because of the medling of environmental groups. I find this topic of "science and politics" very interesting. In general, I don't think a lot of people understand the role of science in the developement of environmental policy.
HOUSE: COMMITTEE REVIEWS ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IMPLEMENTATION
On Oct. 13, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations convened for a hearing entitled "The Endangered Species Act: Reviewing the Nexus Between Science and Policy."
In his opening statement, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Paul Broun R-GA) sought to use the proportionally low number of species that have been delisted from the Endangered Species Act as evidence of the law's failure. "In terms of effectiveness, I believe it would be hard to argue that the law has been anything but an abject failure," he said. "Of the roughly 2,000 species listed as endangered or threatened, only about one percent have actually recovered. As a tool for advancing other special interest policy goals, it has certainly been very influential, but I'm not sure that was the Act's original intent."
Subcommittee Ranking Member Donna Edwards (D-MD) sought to highlight the bipartisan support that the Act once enjoyed in her opening statement: "I'd like to start off by quoting one of our country's most famous conservationists, President Richard Nixon: 'Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.' I share that sentiment," she said. I share that quote because protecting wildlife and protecting nature from utter destruction used to be a bipartisan cause. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues no longer see eye to eye with their Party's former president."
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Assistant Director Gary Frazer sought to highlight the importance of the Act: "The ESA provides a critical safety net for America's native fish, wildlife, and plants. And we know it can deliver remarkable successes. Since Congress passed this landmark conservation law in 1973, the ESA has prevented the extinction of hundreds of imperiled species across the nation and has promoted the recovery of many others," he said. "The ESA represents a firm commitment to protect and preserve our natural heritage out of a deeply held understanding of the direct link between the health of our ecosystems, the services they provide and our own well-being."
The majority of witnesses called to testify were critical of the Act. Many asserted that states were appropriately suited to manage the protection of endangered species. "If recovery goals were optionally deferred to the states, I'm sure that in many instances we would find state-level recovery plans that would be scientifically reliable, science-based and actually deliver greater performance on the act at a lesser cost than the way recovery plans are administered at present," said Neal Wilkins, Director, Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, Texas A&M University.
Craig Mason, General Counsel of Westlands Water District sought to address criticism about his tenure as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) during the George W. Bush administration. "Some scientists, lawyers and policymakers misunderstand the relationship between policy and science in ESA decision-making. We make not scientific decisions, but science informed decisions in the ESA and our science must be of the highest quality in order to do that...We have to stop pretending that the ESA is not a politicized statute," he said. "It's the job of the executive branch to oversee the work of its employees and that is what happens in most cases that some have viewed as political interference," he contended.
Committee Democrats sought to question the integrity of several of the witnesses. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) asked Alaska Department of Fish and Game Special Assistant Douglas Vincent-Lang about Alaska's gag rule that allegedly directs state scientists to adhere to state positions even in their capacity as peer reviewers of papers. Ranking Member Edwards and Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) asked Manson about his time at Interior, where his then-deputy Julie MacDonald, whom Interior's Inspector General found had "bullied, insulted, and harassed the professional staff of FWS to change documents and alter biological reporting."
"The ESA works. Less than one percent of listing species have gone extinct since 1973 while ten percent of candidate species still waiting to be listed are gone. In addition to the hundreds of species that the Act has protected from extinction, listing has contributed to population increases or the stabilization of populations for at least 35 percent of listed species and perhaps significantly more," contended Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director, Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Grifo noted that the Department of Interior was "first out of the box" to develop a scientific integrity policy during the Obama administration and expressed optimism about its implementation. She cautioned that "science cannot be a mask behind which decision-makers can do anything that special-interests or ideology might dictate. The rightful place for science is as the basis of broad participatory and transparent conversations about how to solve the challenges we face. It is not okay to say the science made me do it while changing the science to justify policy decisions."
View the full hearing here:
http://science.house.gov/hearing/investigations-and-oversight-subcommittee-hearing-%E2%80%93-endangered-species-act
