Tweet
This is how real Republicans works. The Endangered Species Act is nothing else than an act of Big Government to opress the American people. Besides, where in the Bible does it say that endangered species should be protected anyway?
Want to get rid of the government fascism known as the Endangered Species Act? VOTE REPUBLICAN 2016
From an enviornazi website:
From the Godly GOP:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-species-act/
Want to get rid of the government fascism known as the Endangered Species Act? VOTE REPUBLICAN 2016
From an enviornazi website:
Republicans to Renew Attacks on Endangered Species Act and Citizen Lawsuits That Protect Imperiled Plants, Animals
Assault Ignores Research Showing Citizens Play Critical Role in Saving Species
WASHINGTON— U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) will chair a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on Tuesday renewing the Republicans’ extreme agenda to weaken the Endangered Species Act and limit the public’s longstanding right to help protect species by enforcing the Act. This latest assault on the same citizen involvement that has won lifesaving protections for hundreds of the country’s most imperiled plants and animals comes as the nation celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Act — a world-famous law that has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the species entrusted to its care and put hundreds of them on the road to recovery.
“Representative Hastings and his Republican colleagues are disturbingly out of step with most Americans, who overwhelmingly support protecting endangered species from extinction,” said Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director with the Center for Biological Diversity. “But Hastings can’t change the facts. The Endangered Species Act has an almost perfect record of preventing extinctions, and it’s working exceptionally well to recover hundreds of plants and animals across the country — not only well-known species like bald eagles and gray whales, but many lesser-known species too, like island foxes and El Segundo blue butterflies.”
One focus of Tuesday’s hearing will likely be criticism of citizens who litigate or take other action to protect endangered species. In an attempt to pit local and state conservation efforts against the actions of nonprofit conservation groups such as the Center, Hastings and the Republican witnesses are expected to claim that litigation diverts conservation resources away from conserving endangered species. Yet the facts demonstrate exactly the opposite. Many of the Center’s legal actions have provided the kick-start needed to get focused, on-the-ground conservation actions implemented to protect endangered plants and animals and put them on the road to recovery.
“The lesser prairie chicken and sage grouse have declined by at least 90 percent over the past 100 years, but it wasn’t till citizens petitioned and sued to get protection for these animals that concrete state, local and private conservation efforts to save them from extinction began,” said Hartl. “Without years of advocacy and litigation by the Center and other nonprofits to win Endangered Species Act protection for these two species, it’s doubtful that any of these conservation activities would be occurring today.”
Successful litigation brought by the Center and others has played a critical role in protecting hundreds of rare and endangered species. For example:
Tuesday’s hearing is part of an ongoing effort by Hastings and other Republicans to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Since the Republicans retook the House of Representatives in 2011, dozens of bills and amendments have been filed to reduce funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service; prevent species from being protected under the Act; and prematurely remove species from the Act’s protection.
Assault Ignores Research Showing Citizens Play Critical Role in Saving Species
WASHINGTON— U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) will chair a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on Tuesday renewing the Republicans’ extreme agenda to weaken the Endangered Species Act and limit the public’s longstanding right to help protect species by enforcing the Act. This latest assault on the same citizen involvement that has won lifesaving protections for hundreds of the country’s most imperiled plants and animals comes as the nation celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Act — a world-famous law that has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the species entrusted to its care and put hundreds of them on the road to recovery.
“Representative Hastings and his Republican colleagues are disturbingly out of step with most Americans, who overwhelmingly support protecting endangered species from extinction,” said Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director with the Center for Biological Diversity. “But Hastings can’t change the facts. The Endangered Species Act has an almost perfect record of preventing extinctions, and it’s working exceptionally well to recover hundreds of plants and animals across the country — not only well-known species like bald eagles and gray whales, but many lesser-known species too, like island foxes and El Segundo blue butterflies.”
One focus of Tuesday’s hearing will likely be criticism of citizens who litigate or take other action to protect endangered species. In an attempt to pit local and state conservation efforts against the actions of nonprofit conservation groups such as the Center, Hastings and the Republican witnesses are expected to claim that litigation diverts conservation resources away from conserving endangered species. Yet the facts demonstrate exactly the opposite. Many of the Center’s legal actions have provided the kick-start needed to get focused, on-the-ground conservation actions implemented to protect endangered plants and animals and put them on the road to recovery.
“The lesser prairie chicken and sage grouse have declined by at least 90 percent over the past 100 years, but it wasn’t till citizens petitioned and sued to get protection for these animals that concrete state, local and private conservation efforts to save them from extinction began,” said Hartl. “Without years of advocacy and litigation by the Center and other nonprofits to win Endangered Species Act protection for these two species, it’s doubtful that any of these conservation activities would be occurring today.”
Successful litigation brought by the Center and others has played a critical role in protecting hundreds of rare and endangered species. For example:
- In 2000 the Center filed a petition to protect four subspecies of island fox. After several years of litigation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed all four subspecies as endangered under the Act and worked with the National Park Service on a comprehensive restoration program for Channel Islands National Park. Today the island foxes are recovering, and one of America’s crown jewel parks has been ecologically restored. The San Miguel island fox, for example, has increased from fewer than 15 animals in 1999 to more than 400 in 2012.
- The eastern population of Steller sea lions steadily declined from more than 200,000 animals in the 1970s to roughly 20,000 animals in the 1990s. Following federal inaction, a series of lawsuits resulted in fishing restrictions that helped the sea lions steadily increase to more than 45,000 animals.
- Litigation by the Center compelled the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the impact of pesticides on the red-legged frog and its 1.6 million acres of critical habitat in California, leading to common-sense restrictions on the spraying of these chemicals to protect the frog and other aquatic species.
Tuesday’s hearing is part of an ongoing effort by Hastings and other Republicans to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Since the Republicans retook the House of Representatives in 2011, dozens of bills and amendments have been filed to reduce funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service; prevent species from being protected under the Act; and prematurely remove species from the Act’s protection.
Hastings Urges Obama Administration to Halt Proposed Endangered Species Listing
Designation ignores proper input from the public, could impact private property, and cost local farmers and landowners thousands of dollars.
Washington, D.C., May 15 - Congressman Doc Hastings (WA-04) today sent a letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Director Dan Ashe expressing concern over the USFWS hastily listing the White Bluffs Bladderpod under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and seeking to finalize a critical habitat designation next week. In the letter, Hastings urges Director Ashe to immediately halt efforts to enforce this designation, allow the public at least 60 days’ extension for meaningful comment, and to allow a public hearing for impacted farmers and landowners to express their concerns. Click here to read the full letter.
“Because the right to one’s private property is a fundamental right protected by our Constitution, when federal rules and regulations might impact such rights, as here, I firmly believe that extra caution should be exercised by the federal government,” wrote Hastings. “As you know, I have been highly critical of the Department of Interior’s negotiation of settlements behind closed doors with litigious groups that frequently petition and file Endangered Species Act-related lawsuits against the federal government, because they defy transparency and accountability, and raise questions regarding the Service’s ESA management priorities. These settlements also ignore input from states and local entities that are most affected by the potential ESA listing or critical habitat designation. Without a reasonable extension, it would confirm my criticism has been justified.”
Background:
Last month, Hastings called the listing “the latest example of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s reacting to self-imposed deadlines from a closed-door settlement with a litigious environmental group.” The White Bluffs Bladderpod is found on thousands of acres near the Hanford National Monument in Franklin County and Benton County, Washington. The critical habitat designation for the Bladderpod includes over 400 acres of privately-owned land as habitat, which could cost over $300,000 in lost irrigated agriculture value.
This announcement follows two court settlements in 2011 between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians that require the USFWS to determine whether 757 different plant or animal species should be listed as endangered before 2018. The Bladderpod, as well as the Umtanum Desert buckwheat species, was petitioned for Endangered Species Act listing by the Center for Biological Diversity in 2004.
As Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act, Hastings has promised to closely examine actions to determine what improvements might be necessary to the Act to ensure the local community, private property, and the public’s right to access public lands are protected.
Designation ignores proper input from the public, could impact private property, and cost local farmers and landowners thousands of dollars.
Washington, D.C., May 15 - Congressman Doc Hastings (WA-04) today sent a letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Director Dan Ashe expressing concern over the USFWS hastily listing the White Bluffs Bladderpod under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and seeking to finalize a critical habitat designation next week. In the letter, Hastings urges Director Ashe to immediately halt efforts to enforce this designation, allow the public at least 60 days’ extension for meaningful comment, and to allow a public hearing for impacted farmers and landowners to express their concerns. Click here to read the full letter.
“Because the right to one’s private property is a fundamental right protected by our Constitution, when federal rules and regulations might impact such rights, as here, I firmly believe that extra caution should be exercised by the federal government,” wrote Hastings. “As you know, I have been highly critical of the Department of Interior’s negotiation of settlements behind closed doors with litigious groups that frequently petition and file Endangered Species Act-related lawsuits against the federal government, because they defy transparency and accountability, and raise questions regarding the Service’s ESA management priorities. These settlements also ignore input from states and local entities that are most affected by the potential ESA listing or critical habitat designation. Without a reasonable extension, it would confirm my criticism has been justified.”
Background:
Last month, Hastings called the listing “the latest example of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s reacting to self-imposed deadlines from a closed-door settlement with a litigious environmental group.” The White Bluffs Bladderpod is found on thousands of acres near the Hanford National Monument in Franklin County and Benton County, Washington. The critical habitat designation for the Bladderpod includes over 400 acres of privately-owned land as habitat, which could cost over $300,000 in lost irrigated agriculture value.
This announcement follows two court settlements in 2011 between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians that require the USFWS to determine whether 757 different plant or animal species should be listed as endangered before 2018. The Bladderpod, as well as the Umtanum Desert buckwheat species, was petitioned for Endangered Species Act listing by the Center for Biological Diversity in 2004.
As Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act, Hastings has promised to closely examine actions to determine what improvements might be necessary to the Act to ensure the local community, private property, and the public’s right to access public lands are protected.
When the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law in 1973 by President Nixon, he spoke about the importance of preserving “the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.” I believe that goal is as important today as it was back then. However, after nearly 40 years, it’s time to take a fresh, honest look at the law and consider whether there are ways it could be improved to do a better job of protecting and recovering species.
The House Natural Resources Committee, which I chair, has begun a series of hearings to review the ESA. The purpose of these efforts is to look for ways to update, improve and strengthen the law - not to turn back the clock to 1973, before the law was passed. Congress last renewed the ESA in 1988, which means it has been 24 years since any substantial updates have been made. Clearly, Congress has failed to do its job. Even the most ardent supporters of the ESA should be able to agree that after two decades, there are ways to make the law more efficient and effective. By listening to citizens both affected by and interested in the ESA, the committee will conduct a fair and open assessment of both the law’s strengths and its weaknesses.
There are five objectives that I think a review and update of the ESA should achieve.
One, focus on species recovery. There are 1,391 domestic animal and plant species listed under the act. Of these, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has declared just 20 species recovered. That represents only a 1 percent recovery rate. The law is failing to achieve its primary purpose of recovering endangered species. We must do better.
Two, reduce ESA-related litigation. One of the greatest obstacles to the success of the ESA is the way in which it has become a tool for excessive litigation. Instead of focusing on recovering endangered species, there are groups that use the ESA as a way to bring hundreds of lawsuits against the government. In response, agencies have to spend time and resources addressing those lawsuits instead of focusing on species recovery.
FWS Director Dan Ashe has testified that the agency spent more than 75 percent of its fiscal 2011 resource-management allocation on court orders or settlement agreements resulting from litigation. He stated,”We fully agree with the concern that our resources are better spent on implementing the ESA than on litigation.”
Three, ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent each year on endangered-species protection. In the face of trillion-dollar budget deficits, Congress has an obligation to ensure that money is spent appropriately to achieve the law’s intent - the recovery of species. Every dollar that is spent on court settlements and legal fees is a dollar that is not going to directly help endangered species.
Four, base decisions on independently peer-reviewed science. Any decisions made on whether to list or delist a species should be based on sound science, not politics and not just because of lawsuits. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. For example, FWS has decided not to conduct a stock assessment for the Atlantic sturgeon before moving forward with a listing. How can it determine whether a species is endangered if federal bureaucrats don’t bother to count the size of the current population? Without this information, how will they ever be able to determine if the species is recovered?
Five, make the law work for both species and people. The implementation of the ESA too often goes beyond the original intent of species recovery and is instead used to block and delay job-creating economic projects and activities. For example, a renewable-energy wind project in Washington state was abandoned because of the ESA’s overly burdensome regulatory process. The Radar Ridge project would have created up to 300 short-term jobs and provided a new source of renewable energy. But the project never went forward because of lengthy, costly and questionable restrictions under the ESA. We must be able to protect species without creating a bureaucracy that is so burdensome that it destroys economic activity and jobs.
Updating the 24-year-old Endangered Species Act will help ensure that the law works better to recover endangered species. Congress can no longer kick the can down the road while millions of dollars are wasted on frivolous lawsuits, resources are diverted away from true species recovery, and jobs are lost due to regulatory red tape that does little, if anything, to protect species.
The House Natural Resources Committee, which I chair, has begun a series of hearings to review the ESA. The purpose of these efforts is to look for ways to update, improve and strengthen the law - not to turn back the clock to 1973, before the law was passed. Congress last renewed the ESA in 1988, which means it has been 24 years since any substantial updates have been made. Clearly, Congress has failed to do its job. Even the most ardent supporters of the ESA should be able to agree that after two decades, there are ways to make the law more efficient and effective. By listening to citizens both affected by and interested in the ESA, the committee will conduct a fair and open assessment of both the law’s strengths and its weaknesses.
There are five objectives that I think a review and update of the ESA should achieve.
One, focus on species recovery. There are 1,391 domestic animal and plant species listed under the act. Of these, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has declared just 20 species recovered. That represents only a 1 percent recovery rate. The law is failing to achieve its primary purpose of recovering endangered species. We must do better.
Two, reduce ESA-related litigation. One of the greatest obstacles to the success of the ESA is the way in which it has become a tool for excessive litigation. Instead of focusing on recovering endangered species, there are groups that use the ESA as a way to bring hundreds of lawsuits against the government. In response, agencies have to spend time and resources addressing those lawsuits instead of focusing on species recovery.
FWS Director Dan Ashe has testified that the agency spent more than 75 percent of its fiscal 2011 resource-management allocation on court orders or settlement agreements resulting from litigation. He stated,”We fully agree with the concern that our resources are better spent on implementing the ESA than on litigation.”
Three, ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent each year on endangered-species protection. In the face of trillion-dollar budget deficits, Congress has an obligation to ensure that money is spent appropriately to achieve the law’s intent - the recovery of species. Every dollar that is spent on court settlements and legal fees is a dollar that is not going to directly help endangered species.
Four, base decisions on independently peer-reviewed science. Any decisions made on whether to list or delist a species should be based on sound science, not politics and not just because of lawsuits. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. For example, FWS has decided not to conduct a stock assessment for the Atlantic sturgeon before moving forward with a listing. How can it determine whether a species is endangered if federal bureaucrats don’t bother to count the size of the current population? Without this information, how will they ever be able to determine if the species is recovered?
Five, make the law work for both species and people. The implementation of the ESA too often goes beyond the original intent of species recovery and is instead used to block and delay job-creating economic projects and activities. For example, a renewable-energy wind project in Washington state was abandoned because of the ESA’s overly burdensome regulatory process. The Radar Ridge project would have created up to 300 short-term jobs and provided a new source of renewable energy. But the project never went forward because of lengthy, costly and questionable restrictions under the ESA. We must be able to protect species without creating a bureaucracy that is so burdensome that it destroys economic activity and jobs.
Updating the 24-year-old Endangered Species Act will help ensure that the law works better to recover endangered species. Congress can no longer kick the can down the road while millions of dollars are wasted on frivolous lawsuits, resources are diverted away from true species recovery, and jobs are lost due to regulatory red tape that does little, if anything, to protect species.
Comment