Endangered Species Act

Talking Points for ESA

What is the Endangered Species Act?

• The Endangered Species Act (ESA), enacted in 1973, is the nation's primary tool for conserving imperiled plants and animals. Currently over 1,200 U.S. species and over 550 foreign species are listed as either threatened or endangered.

• Endangered species: In imminent risk of going extinct.

• Threatened species: In imminent risk of becoming endangered.

• The ESA also protects "critical habitats" - the places where endangered species live. (Source: The National Wildlife Federation)
  

'Endangered species' safety threatened'

• 41% percent of the act’s listed species have stabilized or even improved their numbers.

• The act is under attack by lawmakers for its restrictions on property use and development.

• The House of Representatives passed legislation (Pombo Bill) eliminating habitat protections that hamper development. Political appointees would make decisions about protection.

• The Pombo Bill would eliminate the requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency consult with wildlife agencies before approving pesticide use.

• The Bush administration’s proposed budget would cut endangered species funding by $7.7 billion, a 10 % reduction.

(Source: The Kansas City Star, "Endangered species' safety threatened" 2/24/06)

What's next: The fight moves to the Senate

• On March 15, we expect to see a bill introduced by Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), with a mark-up and vote following as soon as March 29.

Background on H.R. 3824: Pombo's "Wildlife Extinction" bill

The bill, sponsored by Richard Pombo (R-CA), passed the House of Representatives on September 29, 2005, with a vote of 229 to 193. Specifically, the "Extinction bill" would:

• End all critical habitat protection for the river banks, forests, beaches, meadows, and other special places that endangered plants and animals need to survive and recover;

• Repeal all provisions that protect threatened and endangered species from the harmful impact of pesticides;

• Require Fish and Wildlife Service to allow unfettered habitat destruction if the federal government fails to meet a 180-day deadline for telling developers whether their actions would kill or harm an endangered species;

• Jeopardize virtually all protections for wildlife by creating a tangle of bureaucracy and regulations that would make it impossibly burdensome for biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service to act;

• Give the Service just 180 days to choose between allowing corporate and private landowners to kill endangered animals and plants at will, or paying whatever ransom they might demand for lost profits to keep them from breaking the law;

• Substitute political science for biological science and allow political appointees to manipulate science to fit their political agenda;

• Eliminate the vital check and balance role that expert wildlife agencies have played in safeguarding imperiled species from federal projects that may jeopardize their continued existence; and

• Change the definition of what constitutes an “endangered species,” making it harder to protect individual populations of endangered wildlife if a species is endangered in America but healthy in a foreign country.

Background on S. 2110: Senator Crapo( R-ID) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AK)
On December 15, 2005, Senator Crapo and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) introduced the "Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act" (S. 2110)
The bill is cosponsored by Wayne Allard (R-CO and Craig Thomas (R-WY).

Specifically, the Crapo bill would:

• Destroy one species’ habitat in exchange for another’s by creating a conservation bank where developers could buy and sell credits for destroying endangered species habitat;

• Delay protections for species and habitat by extending from one year to three years the deadline for final listing decisions after a proposal is submitted to list an imperiled species as threatened and endangered;

• Undermine recovery plans by creating a convoluted new planning process that allows industry to rewrite and overrule the decisions of wildlife experts;

• Create roadblocks to listing endangered species by installing an ambiguous priority system for listing endangered species that includes industry interests;

• Eliminate federal oversight of endangered species by allowing projects on private property to proceed under "provisional permits" if there is no recovery plan in place for a species;

• Restrict wildlife agencies from improving conservation agreements in response to changing threats to endangered species; and

• Pay developers to not violate the law by creating tax breaks to compensate private landowners for conservation work done on private property -- even if those landowners are not actively enhancing or creating endangered species habitat.

(Source: Earth Justice)

Myths and Facts

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Endangered Species Act. These are a few of the most common myths and the real truth behind them:

• The ESA and Private Property

MYTH: The ESA gives the federal government the power to snatch away people's private property.
TRUTH: Except in one unusual case involving water rights, no federal court has ever found that the ESA has lead to an unconstitutional land grab.

• Success or Failure?

MYTH: The ESA is a failure because it has led to the recovery of only a handful of species.
REALITY: The ESA is like an emergency room: it only handles urgent cases. The success of an emergency room is measured by whether the patient's condition is stabilized or improved to the point where recovery is possible with further care. Applying the same definition, the ESA has been remarkably successful: As of 1996, 37 percent of all threatened and endangered species were on the rebound. Nearly half of species that had been on the list more than seven years were stable or improving. The longer a species enjoys the ESA's protections, the more likely its condition will stabilize or improve. The red wolf, the black footed ferret, and the California condor are just a few examples.

• Junk Science?

MYTH: The process of listing species under the ESA is based on faulty and incomplete science, which leads to the listing of species not needing protection.
REALITY: Studies reveal that most species are not listed until their numbers are perilously low. A 1995 Science magazine article reports that the median number of surviving individuals at the time of listing is 1,000 for animals, and just 100 for plants. Protecting species before they reach the very brink of extinction would be more effective and cheaper.

• Job Killer?

MYTH: The ESA puts plants and animals above people, costing us money and jobs.
REALITY: The ESA explicitly requires balancing species protection with people's economic needs. Once a species is listed, the ESA requires that people and the economy be considered at every stage - including the designation of habitat, the development of regulation and the creation of alternatives. Plus, the ESA actually helps the economy by protecting the ecosystems that provide food, medicine, flood protection and recreation.

• A Chokehold on Development?

MYTH: The ESA brings construction and development to a halt.
REALITY: Of more than 219,000 development projects reviewed under the ESA between 1998 and 2001, less than one percent were found to potentially jeopardize listed species - and most of these were allowed to continue after including reasonable alternatives to minimize environmental harm.

• Too Expensive?

MYTH: Protecting endangered species is an expensive luxury we can't afford.
REALITY: Extinction is something we can't afford. Biodiversity provides us with priceless benefits - from supplying lifesaving drugs to maintaining natural ecosystems and recreational lands. In 2003, the amount we spent to implement the ESA was $126 million - the same cost as 13 miles of a four-lane federal highway
(Source: The National Wildlife Federation)

For more information on the Endangered Species Act, visit the website for the US Fish and Wildlife at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/