In the US, politicians are ignoring, for the most part, the needs of species
for suitable habitat in rewriting the Endangered Species Act. It seems an
understandable consequence of a shift in political winds.
Is such avoidance (and misrepresentation?) of knowledge inevitable as human
wants and needs push harder on ecosystems?
If this happens in the USA where knowledge of species needs and our
standards of living are high relative to other countries, what might be
expected in other countries?
Joe Means
Means@fsl.orst.edu
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Letter to Rep. Young from Orians & Others
Author: "Ecological Society of America: Society News and Business Only" at
Internet_gateway
Date: 10/11/95 9:11 AM
The attached letter was released this morning as part of a press
briefing held on the Hill by the Endangered Species Coalition.
------------------- YPOMBO.DOS follows --------------------
OPEN LETTER FROM LEADERS OF SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
The Honorable Don Young
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
October 10, 1995
Dear Representative Young:
As scientists who study ecology, botany, and zoology, and as leaders of
professional scientific organizations, we believe that any law or policy to
protect endangered species should be firmly based on sound science. In that
context, we must express our strong disappointment with H.R. 2275, the
"Endangered Species Conservation and Management Act of 1995." This bill to
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act is so riddled with scientific errors
and misstatements as to be indefensible.
Space does not permit us to list all of our concerns with H.R. 2275. Some of
the more egregious failings of the bill include the following:
--The redefinition of "harm" essentially cripples the Act's ability to
protect the habitats of endangered species. Yet habitat loss is far and
away the most significant factor driving species toward extinction.
According to a 1994 study, more than 95% of U.S. endangered species are
imperiled at least in part by habitat loss or alteration. (See C.H.
Flather, L.A. Joyce, and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species Endangerment
Patterns in the United States. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-241. Ft. Collins,
CO).
--The bill completely ignores the recommendations of a 1995 report from the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled
"Science and the Endangered Species Act." This report, prepared by a panel
convened by the nation's most prestigious scientific body, reflected
literally years of deliberation on the scientific issues underlying the
Endangered Species Act.
--The bill relies heavily on captive propagation as a means of rescuing
endangered species, despite abundant evidence that such steps are often
expensive and unsuccessful. More importantly, captive propagation alone
does not address the fundamental threat to most species, which is the loss
or degradation of their habitats. An identical argument can be made about
the bill's heavy reliance on hatcheries for saving imperiled fish.
--As scientists, all of us are very familiar with and supportive of the peer
review process. But the so-called "peer review" process for listing species
in H.R. 2275 is a cumbersome and overly complex caricature of the scientific
one. Its effect would be to delay needlessly the listing of disappearing
species, rather than increase the scientific rigor of those decisions. In a
similar vein, the rigorous standards that must be met before a species is
listed do not apply to the removal of a species from the endangered species
list, a distinction without scientific basis.
--The bill requires those charged with preparing conservation plans for
listed species to assess the "biological significance" of each species.
"Biological significance" is so vague a term as to be essentially
meaningless. Scientists can often identify the roles that particular
species play within ecosystems, but they cannot assess the biological
significance of a species.
--Despite its impressive-sounding name, the National Biological Diversity
Reserve created by this bill provides virtually no protection to
biodiversity beyond those measures already in place. This stems from the
fact that only lands within the National Park System, National Wildlife
Refuge System, National Wilderness Preservation System, and National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System are eligible for inclusion, and these lands are
already protected from most harmful activities. At the same time, the bill
weakens efforts to protect biodiversity on the federal lands falling outside
the so-called National Biological Diversity Reserve.
The conservation of endangered species is a complex and difficult task.
Economic and social consideration inevitably--and rightfully--play a
significant role in determining national policy. So too must science, for
it is an essential part of the task. Unfortunately, H.R. 2275 reflects an
almost complete lack of scientific understanding.
Sincerely,
Rita Colwell
President
American Association for
the Advancement of Science
Diana Freckman
Past President
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
Simon Levin
Past President
Ecological Society of America
Gene Likens
Past President
Ecological Society of America
Jane Lubchenco
President-Elect
American Association for
the Advancement of Science
Past President
Ecological Society of America
Harold Mooney
Past President
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
Judith Meyer
Past President
Ecological Society of America
Gordon Orians
President
Ecological Society of America
Paul Risser
Past President
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
Past President
Ecological Society of America
------------ End Forwarded Message -------------
Received: by ccmail from ccmbox1.ucs.orst.edu
X-Envelope-From: owner-esanews@UMDD.UMD.EDU
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by ccmbox1.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA10221; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 09:09:53 -0700
Message-Id: <199510111609.JAA10221@ccmbox1.ucs.orst.edu>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id E985E0FD ; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:55:24 -0400
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:54:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Ecological Society of America: Society News and Business Only" <ESANEWS@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Sender: "Ecological Society of America: Society News and Business Only"
<ESANEWS@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
From: Esa Headquarters <esahq@esa.org>
Subject: Letter to Rep. Young from Orians & Others
To: Multiple recipients of list ESANEWS <ESANEWS@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0