|
 he
General Accounting Office released its report last week on seven
biologists accused of planting Canadian lynx fur in two national
forests. The biologists claim they planted the fur to test whether
their labs could distinguish it from the real thing. Critics argue
the biologists were falsifying data to restrict land use under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The GAO report lends itself to the
latter interpretation and with federal scientists joining environmental
activists there shouldn't be a spot of property, public or private,
that the ESA cannot shut down. Too bad this action doesn't help
species: endangered, human, or otherwise.
The Center
for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona has been the leader
in listing species to close lands to human activity. One hundred
and seventeen species and 35 million acres of "critical habitat"
have been listed with the center's help, but the organization's
primary goal is not saving species. Asked in a 1999 New Yorker
piece about the founding idea behind the center, a prominent member
explained how a friend told him, "We're crazy to sit in trees
when there's this incredible law where we can make people do whatever
we want." The friend was referring to the ESA, which places
federal restrictions on land inhabited by endangered critters.
Acting on that
basis, the center pursues species listings that restrict landowners
from using their own property. In 2000, the center responded to
a Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to list the California red-legged
frog. A spokesman boasted, "It's the largest proposed critical
habitat designation in the history of the state. And it should have
a large impact on development projects, assuming it's enforced."
This past summer, the group petitioned to list the California tiger
salamander. A June press release made it clear the intention was
again to halt development on private lands.
The ESA's founding
intention was to protect species on the verge of extinction. (It
is hard to imagine a unanimous vote in the Senate, a nearly unanimous
vote in the House, and Richard Nixon's signature intended to hog-tie
development, ranching, logging, and other endeavors from Salem,
Maine to Salem, Oregon.) The ESA's lofty initial goal, however,
is no longer served. Species leave the list to extinction, not recovery.
In 1997, the
National Wilderness Institute published an article in Environment
International. About 1,250 species are listed as threatened
or endangered under the ESA. The article examined the 27 species
that had been delisted since the act's inception. Fourteen species
never warranted listing in the first place. Seven had followed the
dodo into extinction. Of the remaining six, two were saved by the
DDT ban, one was improving before listing, and three were kangaroos
saved in Australia by Australian policies. Not one could claim an
ESA revival.
In fact, it
appears the ESA hurts species. Some disregard rumors of private
landowners implementing the three-S method of endangered species
management (shoot, shovel, and shut up) as nothing more than anecdotes
and hearsay. But economists at Montana State University and North
Carolina State have found substantial evidence that the ESA does
indeed create the incentive to harm listed species.
Dean Lueck
and Jeffrey Michael researched land management practices near colonies
of red-cockaded woodpeckers, one of the first species listed under
the act. They surveyed owners of more than 400 forest plots to determine
the average age of timber at harvest and then collected data on
the number of woodpecker colonies within a 25-mile radius of each
landowner's property. By comparing age at harvest with the closeness
of the colonies, they found landowners with the most colonies nearby
cut their timber nine years earlier than normal. As the woodpecker's
preferred habitat is old growth pine, it appears landowners were
seeking to avoid federal regulation by discouraging Mr. Woodpecker
and friends from settling in their trees.
Lueck and Michael's
study may not be evidence of shoot, shovel, and shut up, but it
does indicate that preemptive habitat destruction is occurring,
giving rise to the see, saw, and sell early phenomenon. See the
birds nearby. Saw down your trees. Sell your timber early. For endangered
species, the ESA has become more deadly than a Taliban Christmas
party.
Not all environmental
groups have turned a blind eye to the ESA-induced death warrant.
In a 1996 paper, Environmental Defense asked why the United States
was losing the battle against extinction. The authors described
landowners' fear of increasing land use restrictions from endangered
species populations. They wrote, "In its most extreme manifestation,
this fear has prompted some landowners to destroy unoccupied habitat
of endangered species before the animals could find it."
Until more
environmental groups and federal agencies work with landowners instead
of against them, the hope for recovering species will remain bleak.
Trust must be built up. Condemning those who falsify data or twist
the ESA from its original intent is a good place to start. Environmental
groups would be wise to call for the early retirement of the accused
in the lynx debacle.
|
