October 2005, Newsletter #3
Welcome to the
THE RED LODGE CLEARINGHOUSE,
the full-service information source for collaborative groups
throughout the Interior west committed to resolving resource-use
conflicts.
We now focus on the big envornmental issue of the day—Congress
and the Endangered Species Act. Is the process
public-participatory or Washington coerced?
|
 |
House sends Pombo ESA rewrite to the Senate, 226-193
ALLISON A. FREEMAN, GREENWIRE 9/30/05
The House of Representatives voted 226-193 last night to deliver
Rep. Richard Pombo's (R-Calif.) overhaul of the Endangered Species
Act to the Senate, after narrowly defeating a substitute amendment
that would have changed key aspects of the measure.
The bill, H.R. 3824, passed, along with Pombo's manager's
amendment, to make the biggest changes to the law since its
enactment 32 years ago. It throws out the law's "critical
habitat" requirements in favor of recovery plans, allows the
Interior Department to set requirements for the science it uses
and creates a program to pay property owners for lost value of
their land if it is taken for habitat.
SEE FULL STORY >>
Senators Chafee, Clinton urge caution on Pombo's ESA bill
DAN BERMAN, E&E DAILY, 9/22/05
The leaders of a key Senate Environment and Public Works
subcommittee on the Endangered Species Act said they want to
wait for a report from an independent commission before
considering changes to the law.
Senate Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Subcommittee
Chairman Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and ranking member
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) both said they would prefer
to see the recommendations of the Keystone Center, a nonprofit
group based in Colorado that Chafee asked to consider changes
to ESA, before going ahead with ESA revisions.
SEE FULL STORY >>
Lawmakers consider tweaks to ESA overhaul proposal
ALLISON A. FREEMAN, GREENWIRE 9/22/05
A House proposal to overhaul the Endangered Species Act
includes provisions that could create a legal quagmire for
agency officials, Interior Department Assistant Secretary Craig
Manson cautioned yesterday.
Manson said he largely supported the bill but that some changes
should be made to ensure that its provisions do not overwhelm
the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget or staff resources.
SEE FULL STORY >>
|
 |
Navigating the ESA debate
IDAHO SENATOR MIKE CRAPO
We Americans have a vision for wildlife conservation. We
began recovering species long before we passed the Endangered
Species Act in 1973. By the time we did that, we had already
recovered bison, black bears, wood ducks, pronghorn, elk,
bighorn sheep, mountain lions, and others.
ESA kept the vision but we can and must do better. The first
challenge is to sort out and evaluate competing arguments and
facts, which can be hard to do when debates like this one blow
in a gale. Here is my advice for finding our way forward to a
better Endangered Species Act.
READ MORE >>
Incentives—A word or a strategy?
MICHAEL BEAN, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
Though they may agree on little else, the opposing sides in
the recurrent skirmishing over the Endangered Species Act
agree on this: incentives are a good thing. At the rhetorical
level, at least, that is progress. But what do the various
interests mean when they voice support for incentives? What
sort of incentives, for what sorts of actions, by what set of
actors, are people actually advocating? When examined at this
level of detail, differences of viewpoint sometimes become apparent.
Nevertheless, the emerging consensus around the desirability of
offering more and better incentives for the conservation of
imperiled species has created a welcome opportunity to think
creatively about how endangered species conservation might be
improved.
READ MORE >>
From noble intent to politicized strategy—time for change
BILL BURNHAM, THE PEREGRINE FUND
There is no organization that believes more strongly in saving species and our natural world than The Peregrine Fund. Our record proves it. Now, we as others—our Federal Agencies and field conservationists—recognize that the ESA has too often become a legal strategy in an ongoing battle over land use. The already very limited funding appropriated for on-the-ground species recovery work is thus victimized by the cost of litigation.
READ MORE >>
|
|
|
