Faux Protection
Environmental policy that hurts everyone-and thing.

By J. Bishop Grewell, a research associate at the Political Economy Research Center, and a contributor to the forthcoming book, Government versus the Environment.
March 14, 2002 9:15 a.m.

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.