From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Fri Dec 03 1999 - 15:22:10 MST
On Thu, 02 Dec 1999, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Facts, please! According to one study mentioned on
> <http://www.cnie.org/nle/biodv-1.html>, there are an average of 407 animals
> left in each species of invertebrates on the Endangered Species List.
Actually, it says that the *median* population is 407 animals (for
vertebrates), not the average. A big difference. While a large percentage
of the species listed with the ESA really are endangered, there is a good
sized fraction that are most certainly not. See below.
> The listing of an endangered species by the Endangered Species Act
> of 1973 (ESA) requires a risk of global extinction, not local disappearance.
>
> Please give references where an endangered species was listed while
> "flourishing by the millions in other, less visited, regions of the planet."
Only in theory. The criteria for listing allows for many exceptions,
which have in practice been exploited in every conceivable fashion.
Example of locale specific endangerment: The bald eagle.
The bald eagle was originally designated endangered south of the 40th
parallel. Later legislation expanded it to the entire lower 48 states. I
believe the bald eagle was reduced to several hundred breeding pairs in
the lower 48 at one time. However, Alaska was specifically
exempted. Why? Because Alaska (and Canada) had a large and healthy
population of bald eagles that were being actively culled to control the
populations (they are avian coyotes in some respects). And quite
honestly, I've never been on a trip to Alaska at any time where I didn't
see dozens of them; they are as rare as pigeons up there. The bald
eagle in Alaska has been put on the list off and on in recent years, but
mostly as the result of a tug-of-war between environmentalists and Alaskan
agricultural concerns, not as a function of population.
The requirements for listing are easily manipulated:
Decisions to list a species is based on petitions and other documentation
submitted by private parties. Unless the listing authority has recent
documentation specifically refuting the documentation submitted with the
petition, the species in question will usually be listed based on the
documentation submitted with a petition-to-list.
One of the more egregious side-effects is caused by who is allowed to
submit petitions to list or de-list a species. Listing or de-listing a
species requires documentation be submitted by a qualified scientist.
However, any documentation submitted by parties with economic
interests that could be affected by a listing are invalid by law. The
result is that it is very easy for people with environmental agendas to
list a species, but extremely difficult for those people affected by the
listing to de-list a species or contest a petition-to-list, even if the
petition-to-list contains bogus or unsubstantiated information. The
people most affected by a listing are, by law, not allowed to contest a
listing.
Environmentalists use the ESA as a weapon to lock up vast tracts of land
from human use: see Elko county, Nevada.
This is the part that really pisses me off. The more extreme
environmental groups are using the ESA as a tool for their own agendas
without regard to the real purpose of the ESA. In the case of Elko
County, they wanted to turn a large section of Humboldt forest area into an
off-limits wilderness area. The small population that lives there wasn't
interested in their plan, since they hunt and fish in those areas.
Solution: the environmentalists listed the local population of Bull Trout
as endangered in that locale, creating an instant critical habitat area
that is off-limits to humans. The Bull Trout species is not endangered;
it lives in many other areas and the local population of Bull Trout was
very healthy. The listing of the trout was purely a strongarm tactic.
And to top it off with a purely anecdotal story:
I was fishing off the coast of British Columbia with a local fisherman.
While we were fishing, I noticed we were being followed by enormous flocks
of sea birds (the name escapes me at the moment). The fisherman told me
that those birds could not be harmed because they were an endangered
species. Looking at the thousand or so bird directly behind our little
boat, I thought he was kidding. Nope. According to him those birds
became endangered at some place along the U.S. coast (Oregon I think he
said), and as a result were endangered everywhere. He claimed that when a
large fishing vessels dumped barrels of chum various fish parts
overboard, thousands of those birds would descend like a swarm of
locusts. They used to drive the birds off with guns(they eat all the
bait), but since they became "endangered", they've had to live with them.
It is all fine and well that they want to protect the ~1,200 species
currently listed in the U.S., but the current listing process is does not
require scientific rigor and is often very political.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:56 MST