House GOP Wrong on Endangered Species Act

While correct that the Endangered Species Act needs to be revises based upon this statement it is obvious that if only 2% of identified endangered or threatened species out of 1,500 animal and plants have recovered enough to be taken off the list then we need to do more and not less related to protecting these species. What isn't addressed is how many species have been save from extinction which is even more important than restoring the species to the point that it can be taken off the list. Once lost a species can no longer be saved at all.

The House GOP members are correct in stating that way too much money is being spent on litigation and the way to resolve that is to impose more strict regulation so that ligitigation is not necessary to protect threatened or endangered species. Why should there even be a question related to how important it is to prevent the extinction of species that can never be reversed?

The House GOP members advocate more of a role by State Governments in protecting the species but State Government can already do that. The State can impose even greater restrictions than the Federal Government when it comes to protection of threatened or endangered species within the State. Nothing has ever prevented that. The Federal Government only imposes the minimum requirements and not the maximum requirements in the protection of endangered and threatened species. The States can and should do more to protect the species and they already have this authority. One of the fundamental reasons for the Endangered Species Act was that the States weren't doing enough to begin with. Historically had the States been proactive in the protection of the species the federal Endangered Species Act wouldn't even exist.

In the statement from the GOP they state that more emphasis is placed upon adding species to the threatened and endangered list than taking them off but that actually makes sense. Getting a threatened or endangered species on the list is far more important than simply having a species reaching the point of minimum viability. Having more than minimum viability in nature causes no harm but having less than the minimum viability (i.e. threatened or endangered) does. Of course when determining that a species is threatened or endangered the "minimum viability" criteria must also be defined for the species but it is the "minimum viability" and not necessarily the preferred viability criteria. Delaying the "de-listiing" will provide a more vibrant and successful "growth" of the species which is what the goal should be.

I would suggest that there needs to be the criteria established by science when a species is declining towards it's minimum viability criteria which would result in listing it as threatened, if it is below this criteria then it is endangers, but de-listing is based upon a naturally expanding preferred viability criteria. Periodic studies can establish when the species unquestionably exceeds the "preferred viability" criteria (i.e. it can't be withing the margin of error of the study) and at that point the species is de-listed but safeguards could still be logically required to avoid a reversal in in the viability of the species.

Finally there are three more recommendations that the House GOP proposes.

1. More transparency related to the scientific studies.

This might sound good but it's really a BS talking point. Science is very transparent as scientific studies are always published. The greater problem is that many in the GOP are science "deniers" that dismiss science anytime they don't like the scientific conclusions for whatever reason. Many deny evolution that is established scientific fact (only the mechinisms for evolution such as "natural selection" are theories that attempt to explain how evolution happened) and AGW that over 99% of active climotologists agree upon. What good is the transparency of science that we already have when so many in the GOP simply deny the science when it doesn't fit with their political (sometimes religiously motivated) agenda?

2. More accurate economic impact studies.

Once agian this is more of a BS talking point than a real issue. The extinction of a species exceeds any economic consideration because once a species becomes extinct no amount of money can bring it back. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered then any action that further reduces it's viability is unacceptable, period. The key is in the criteria for the listing of threatened and endangered species and not the economic impact once the species is listed.

3. Safeguards for Landowners.

There is only really one true safeguard and that is compensation for losses the person might suffer after the purchase of the land if they are adversely affected financial due to an unknown issue of endangered species and the use of their land. For example if a person purchases a mountian lot to build upon but before construction can be started or completed an endangered bird nests on the property where construction would threaten the nest and reproduction of the species then the person would suffer a potential financial loss. That person should be able to seek financial compensation and the rules for compensation should be clearly established by the law. Should the government purchase the land outright or should an annual payment be made so long as the species is using the land for nesting and reproduction. Spell it in the law and the conditions for compensation so that the individual suffers no unexpected financial loss. That is the only "safeguard" that government should be concerned with providing because protection of the species takes precedent over the person.

Bottom line the GOP really needs to be more focused on extending protections for endangered species as even they point out we haven't done enough when it comes to re-instating and protecting a viable population of threatened and endangered species. Always remember that if we're more proactive to begin with then no species would become endangered to begin with. The ultimate solution is to be more proactive in preserving our natural resources and no person has a Right to Destroy Nature.