The Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs fixing. The Trump administration tried, and the excellent June 14 WLJ article by Charles Wallace describes how the Biden administration is rescinding several of the Trump administration’s ESA changes. President Donald Trump’s changes were good, but dealt with details, not the big problems of the ESA.
For example, the Trump administration required economics to be considered in ESA decisions; clarified the difference between threatened and endangered species; and improved how critical habitat is determined, all of which President Joe Biden rescinded.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) described Biden’s changes: “The proposed actions will follow a transparent public process, resulting in regulations that are clear and will be effective in protecting and recovering America’s imperiled wildlife.”
I’m not sure about that; clear and effective federal regulations? Instead of dealing with details about regulations, I suggest we address the big problems of the ESA. As I have written before in my book Wildlife War and God, the big problems with the ESA are:
• The federal agencies (FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service) have a monopoly on the science used in ESA decisions. They decide what science is best and make ESA decisions on species, subspecies and population designations; risk of extinction; significant portion of a species’ range; and the foreseeable future. Then the agencies get deference in court because they are federal agencies, making them essentially unaccountable for their decisions. The quality of science should not be based on government affiliation, but should be based on facts, testing, and repeatability.
• The ESA applies to state and private property, in addition to federal lands. This is essentially a federal seizure of states’ jurisdiction over wildlife and violates the spirit of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which limits the federal government, and the 5th Amendment, which prohibits taking private property without just compensation.
• The ESA allows listing subspecies and distinct population segments (DPS), but these are not scientifically definite categories. The intent of Congress in passing the ESA was to preserve species, but it got turned into a law that allows the federal government to manage wildlife populations, which is a state function.
Environmentalists make bold demands and take money from taxpayers to file ESA lawsuits which prevent their fellow citizens from making a living in agriculture, timber, mining, outfitting, and oil and gas. This is despite the fact that environmentalists use these resources, as we all do. If environmentalists can aggressively advocate for an oppressive un-American ESA, why can’t others aggressively advocate for an ESA consistent with American principles and good science? Maybe it’s time to take a bold stand on principles: The U.S. Constitution and science.
Consider these proposed changes to the ESA:
• The ESA does not apply on state and local public property or private property. The federal government can offer incentives for endangered species management that states and landowners can accept on a strictly voluntary basis.
• The ESA definition of species will be changed to “full biological species as identified by each state.” Subspecies and DPS will be managed by states. The federal government can offer assistance with managing subspecies and populations, which can be accepted at the state’s discretion.
• Federal agencies will implement the ESA—federal agencies will not conduct or review scientific research and data relevant to the ESA. Science will be administered by state governments and conducted with independent, open, peer-review by universities and private companies that do not have conflicts of interest. ESA listings will be recommended to Congress and state governments for approval if there is unanimous agreement on designation of species, risk of extinction, significant portion of a species’ range, and the foreseeable future.
• Each state—governor, legislature, county governments—has equal co-authority with the federal government for all ESA decisions in its respective state.
These proposed changes will be opposed by the federal government and environmentalists, but they represent American principles and open, reproducible science. Lawyers will tell you that these changes will be challenged in court and rejected. Perhaps, but if relatively minor changes such as those implemented by the Trump administration were ultimately rescinded, I think that it’s better to spend the same amount of time, energy, and money to get big, meaningful, and principled changes to the ESA.
If you agree, pass these proposed changes to the ESA to your congressional delegation, governors, state legislators and county commissioners. If they tell you these changes to the ESA will never pass Congress or the courts, tell them that some things are worth fighting for. Fixing the ESA to be in accord with American principles and good science is one of them. — Dr. Matthew Cronin
(Matthew Cronin was a research professor at the University of Alaska, a U.S. Coast Guard officer, and is now at Northwest Biology Company LLC [www.northwestbiology.com] in Bozeman, MT. He can be reached atcroninm@aol.com. A full list of references can be found online at wlj.net.)
(Matthew Cronin was a research professor at the University of Alaska and is now at Northwest Biology Company LLC and an affiliate professor at Montana State University. He can be reached at croninm@aol.com.)
