Critics say Bush plan would weaken endangered species protection

The Bush administration is proposing a major change in the way the federal government decides whether wildlife and plants deserve protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Critics say the move, which is subject to a 30-day comment period before it can be put into effect, would dramatically weaken what has long been seen as a crucial law saving plants, animals, birds and fish from extinction.

The Interior Department unveiled a plan under which independent scientific reviews, which for three decades have been required to determine the protection status of potentially endangered species, would be eliminated. Instead, individual federal agencies would determine whether protected species would be imperiled by agency projects.

The Washington Post noted that "under current law, agencies must subject any plans that potentially affect endangered animals and plants to an independent review by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The paper added:

Under the proposed new rules, dam and highway construction and other federal projects could proceed without delay if the agency in charge decides they would not harm vulnerable species.

It was the second time in recent months that the administration moved away from reliance on the views of government scientists to put more decision making in the hands of agencies run by political appointees.

In a key decision at the Environmental Protection Agency dealing with global warming, senior officials circumvented the recommendations of professional staff scientists and yielded to pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney's office to relax regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement the change in the way the Endangered Species Act is carried out represented "another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door."

Footnote: Within hours after the Associated Press reported the proposed shift, an environmental group, the Endangered Species Coalition, had used it as the basis for an e-mail fundraising appeal, saying the plan "abandons the nation's commitment to protect endangered species from global warming and fast-tracks oil and gas mining, logging and development regardless of the impacts to our nation's wildlife, fish and plants on the brink of extinction."

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo of bald eagle: James Gerstenzang / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Paul Massignani]

Maybe Premier Bush wouldn't have to "save" the economy by more offshore drilling, if he didn't spend a trillion+ dollars on a worthless war in a country that will go back to being just the way it was as soon as we leave it.
A trillion dollars would go a long way into improving America's power infrastructure, bridges and roads, and schools.
Instead, we've blown it on a pathetic attempt at "Americanizing" a country that will never, NEVER accept the western way of life.
Bush is by far the WORST president that the US has ever seen. He has a unique talent for burning this country to the ground. First, he ruined us financially, now he's trying to ruin our natural ecology.
Never again should we vote a right-wing Texas hillbilly retard into office. Barack will turn this country back on course.

[JP]

"Bush and his followers go to hell!!!"

"Mcbushie you have shamed your own constituents.
Let's hope he can be brought up on charges."

"I will gladly give a middle finger to both George Bush and John McCain, as well as to every single other Republican I meet with."

Wow, what an angry bunch of people you are. Why? Disagreeing on the issues is one thing, but you people are just nasty and intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than you do. If we approached our differences with civility and integrity (which Pelosi promised and promptly forgot) we'd all be a lot better off.

[greatGeorge]

Drilling for oil is probably one of the dumbest thing we can do. We need a change in lifestyle. Our cars use way too much fuel, you don't need to drive an SUV to drop your kids at school or pick up some food from the supermarket. Less demand means lower prices, do your part as an American and save us all some cash. Europe is already ahead of us in that matter and so is the rest of the world.

[Cryos]

There needs to be some sort of middle ground. There are environmental whack jobs that stop legitimate business from taking place and can delay good projects for 5-10+ years on lawsuits.

Just as caving into industry is not a good practice either is caving into environmentalist extremists who oppose any sort of economic development.

The global warming religion is a perfect example of this. It is propped up on an unlikely chain of events and even then the data isn't meeting the models. We are supposed to spend tens of trillions of dollars on a phenomenon they can't even come close to proving exists? Then if you disagree or ask for more proof they resort to unscientific methods like "the debate is over" , "flat earth society" and "deniers."

[RealConservative]

Hey so called conservatives.

How about trying ... conserving!

Why can't we even talk about actual conservation without 'conservatives' blocking the efforts?

[Brian]

It's already been said that drilling in Alaska WILL NOT have any effect on our gas prices. Wake up you dumb sheep.

[Joe]

To Jane Smith,
Where are you getting your statistics that show polar bears have experienced increased by "substantial numbers"? I've never seen or read anything like that before and, frankly, I'm doubtful. A quick glance at http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/ also doesn't seem to support your claim. Please don't let this be another case of an outright lie or half-truth that is only meant to confuse John and Jane Q. Public into putting on rose covered glasses and thinking the environment is A-OK.
The most frustrating aspect of Bush's latest decision from my perspective as someone committed to stewardship of the one-and-only planet we've been given to live on is that they are short-sighted. The rules are in place because the old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" are true. In other words it's better to spend a little more time and money doing research first rather than trying to fix a mistake after the fact.

[mark]

I love how the Bushbots post their whole name. I love how they come up with childlike simpleton answers to complex questions they know nothing about, just like Bush. I especially like that they have abandoned logic and reason. The one above that said "What about humas as en endangered species" I laughed so hard I almost choked.

They scare you a little and you beg for them to take away your rights....then your birthrights....then your childrens futures.

What will you do when you've happily given up every right you ever had to the government that sold you to big business?

You are sheep that are counting on government dogs to protect you from the imaginary wolves. You let those dogs turn into a hungry pack that will most definetly eat your children. You deserve what you get.

[Cryos]

"The same libs that are attempting to save the polar bear (which is doing just fine, thank you very much" and the Mesquitan field mouse are the very same people who blast the President for the faltering economy. "

This statement is right on. I don't see how liberals cannot see that the very policies they promote are things that hurt the economy.

The economy is in balance with many other issues including the environment. Reasonable environmentalism has an acceptable impact on the economy but extreme environmentalism has a huge impact and can cripple the economy. Once again the politically based not scientific based climate change issue drives to the heart of this balance.

You can't govern according to lofty ideals and expect reality not to set in.

[ScooterTrash]

Yes, let's let the appointed agencies make the environmental decisions. I'm not surprised by this at all, a furthering by this administration to put people in charge of matters they have no qualification in whatsoever.

[Nathan]

"The global warming religion is a perfect example of this." Posted by: Cryos | August 12, 2008 at 03:00 PM

The people who refer to Climate Change as a religion are usually religious fundamentalists or uneducated LimBots. I think Climate change data sets have a wee bit more proof than your plagiarized Sumerian myths. Thanks for playing, enjoy the home edition.

[Mike V.]

To those of you who call for more and more and more drilling off the U.S. coastline forget that when bush first took office he opened up previously protected areas in the Dakota's, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah, and it made a lot of land owners rich. But what it do at the pumps? Nada!

Also, remember that EVERYTHING that humans have we get from the natural world. Conservation IS the best policy that we have. To plunder and pilage now means less for future generations. I will go further and say, that, if you still want to drill instead of conserve then you are a selfish bastard and do not care about future generations or the security of the U.S.

This to me is not a partisan issue; but to those that think it is should stop thinking selfishly and start thinking in terms of the greater good for now and into the future. Our children and grandchildren will thank us. I know that I thank all the wise presidents who preserved places like Yosemite and Yellowstone and made our forests national treasures for their future generations.

[Nathan]

"Once again the politically based not scientific based climate change issue drives to the heart of this balance." Posted by: Cryos | August 12, 2008 at 03:15 PM

Could you please go down to the nearest EPA building and write that on the wall 500 times. It seems they prefer political opinions rather than scientific ones. Ohh, and can you please tell me how environmentalists have played a roll in Bear Sterns, Fannie & Freddie, sub-prime, weak dollar, outsourcing ..ect. Where is environmentalism really effecting the economy other than in your mind.

[Erik]

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread. I don't know about you but when it comes to a descision on whether an ENTIRE SPECIES WILL STILL EXIST ON THIS PLANET! I would much rather take the word of a 'eco-freak' scientist over an agency that wants to build a bridge or dig a hole in the ground.

Let's put in terms that people can understand, if you got a terminal illness that if treated properly would let you live, otherwise you'd die in the next couple months. Who would you rather have make the decision on what treatment you get: your doctor or your health insurance agency?

hmmm....

[Nikolai]

Our planets climate has always and will always be changing, it is not a static model in a lab. The earth has experienced ice ages, warming periods, droughts, shifting weather patterns, etc.. all without human intervention. To try claim that we "understand" this cycle completely after only studying it for the insignificant amount of time that man has existed in it is a bit arrogant, don't you think?

Is global warming real? Sure it is. It's easy to measure tempuratures. Are we causing it or is it part of a natural cycle? Now THAT is the real question, isn't it?

[Phil]

The Bush Administration is the biggest collection of traitors to the nation ever to come to power. They will sell us all out for a quick buck.

[Immutate]

Let me preface this by telling you I don't consider myself to be liberal, or conservative, I am an independent. I have opinions and ideas, and try to read and learn as much as possible without passing judgement. That's not to say I don't find it hard, or that I don't fail at times, but I do try and look at all sides of an argument before I decide what, or who, I am going to support.

I find it incredibly disheartening that so many 'conservatives' like to point out the fact that people are 'pissed' that Bush does what he wants. Everyone has every right to their own opinion (supposedly... Bush would disagree on that one, I'm sure.). However, in a democracy the "will of the people" should be the driving force of the government, change, and the laws that are passed. Unfortunately, Bush has decided he doesn't have to abide by any laws, and has defended those who torture, seal, and bully. I know I'm mad as hell. I'm mad that there is no way for my voice to be heard, no way for my opinions and ideas to affect anything--not when your vote doesn't count (mine didn't, being that I'm a Floridian). These tactics have been shown to be illegal, and I have no doubt that this motion will also be shown to be against the best interest of the people and the country. The 'liberals' are made, scathing mad, because there is nothing they can do, their ideas and voices have been drowned-out, and where there used to be a middle--ground, there is only "them or us". There is no more compromise, no more checks and balances, no more democracy.

However, back to the topic at hand. I don't see any reason as to why these proposals should be pushed through. Why should companies and government agencies look out for the environment? A prosperous environment doesn't bring profit. This is going to take the power away from those who live and breathe these areas of study, and put the power in the hands of appointed officials who more than likely will bow to the demands of companies that pay the most. In Florida we've seen this happen countless times. I've seen animals who've been run over by backhoes, and turtles who've simply had their holes filled with concrete (along with their ), simply to put a parking lot in place. What is going to keep other states, and other agencies from doing the same? For all those out there who say that humans come before animals--would you like to see your dog, or cat, or fish, or whatever, simply killed without remorse for a parking lot? What about for oil? Would you be willing to give up all, or any, of your pets for oil? I sure as hell wouldn't, and I know 'conservative' right-wing hunters who would put their lives in danger to save the pets, what is so different about those in the wild? There's no guarantee that there's oil in the reserves, only estimates. There's no facilities in place to start drilling tomorrow. There would be no impact on how much you pay for gas, or heating oil, at least not for another 5 years. I see post after post of people saying that we need to drill, we need to produce--but why? Why do we need to drill? I've yet to hear a rebuttal to those who've shown that there would be no immediate impact to new oil operations. Why?

@ Carol - We're trying to stop species from going extinct. Several species have already been wiped off the face of the earth by humans, why are 'conservatives' so hell bent on doing the same in our country?

@ Any 'conservatives' ('liberals' for that matter) who believe we should start drilling in our wildlife preserves--why? Why should we start drilling to fuel our oil lust? How are we supposed to move away from non-renewable resources without having any alternative? Do you keep giving an alcoholic drinks, after they've told you they want to stop drinking? There's currently no incentive. There's no reason why companies should move and invest in new energies, we just keep buying their oil, it's profitable. You think that these oil companies care about the economy, but most have land that they've yet to tap, land that has already been surveyed and shown to have natural oil reserves, land that doesn't endanger our already fragile ecosystem.

The environment is not a 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' issue. The environment is a human issue--something we all have to face. You can feel the different in temperature in the seasons, you can see the erratic weather patterns, you can see the ice crumbling and the effects of pollution. Do you not read? Do you not pay attention to the world around you? Don't listen to the news, don't listen to what people tell you, do the research, read, look around. Oil is not a renewable resource, and we will eventually run dry. Why stay aboard a sinking ship?

[Joe]

Look at all the "Everything is Bushs fault" people go! These are the same people who pushed for using bio fuel, now there are starvation problems in other countries because they cant afford in increased costs in staple crops. LOL!!! Do you think these selfish people are going to admit their their feel good agenda cost lives and created riots in countries like Egypt, Vietnam and many others? Of course not! Instead of looking up my statements of fact they are going to start name calling. None of these people work in construction. I have. I have seen how a couple of neighbors in a city of millions will hold up thousands of jobs just to spend as much possible government money and waste as much time as possible to give some "endangered" frog a habitat. The reality was that this was in the back yard of people homes and they didnt want roads in their back yard as it would reduce their property value. It didnt matter that it was state owned land. Since the state owned the land, their scam was to get biased info on some animal to make the case that it was "endangered", that way construction couldnt take place. Things like that is what Bush is trying to stop, but leave it to the Simpletons to cry conspiracy. Well, I'll cry conspiracy, about people wasting my tax money just because a couple of manipulative people are creatively trying to stop road construction in their backyard by trying to claim and "endangered" animal lives back there. Grow up people. Knowing the real truth about what is going on takes a little more then dressing up like a clown and dancing with a half naked fat guy at G8 meetings in Seattle. Start actually going to your town meetings instead of bitching after they make a decision and blaming faceless corporate giants.

[Kipper]

Everyone in this country knows that oil tycoons Bush and Cheney will do what-ever is necessary to enhance the wallets of oil companies that will be hiring them when they leave office.
However.... We could have stopped them a long time ago, before gas prices had skyrocketed and laws like this came about if Nancy Pelosi and other spineless Democrats had stood behind their oaths and legal obligations to protect the Constitution by removing Bush and Cheney from office.
Instead they chose to be accomplices and to allow these criminals to keep breaking laws and immorally attack our Constitution.
Shame on them.

[James In Oakland]

This administartion is going to do everything it can to completely screw everything up, right up until the very end. Shameful. Worst administration in history, hands down.

[nazcalito]

About 60% of the present high price of gasoline is speculation in the oil futures market, which the Bush folks essentially deregulated in 2006. Most of the price increase has occurred since then. There is no shortage of oil at present. Offshore drilling will add no additional oil for years. However, It could easily boost oil prices in the short term by encouraging even more futures speculation. The only people who will benefit from offshore drilling are the oil companies and the speculators. Joe Average will get nothing out of offshore drilling except maybe beaches covered with oil if a spill occurs.

It's insane for ordinary folks to hand out welfare to t wealthy speculators by paying these crazy prices at the pump. The unregulated oil futures speculation loophole.should be abolished. It won't happen while Bush is still there, or under McCain, however. .

[John A. Bailo]

It doesn't say there would be no review, it said the agency making the change would perform its own review (with its own scientists) and not have "Fish and Wildlife" be a bottleneck.

[BobH]

The on and off shore drilling ban is a stupid Sierra backed law voted into law by people were given money and political support by the Sierra Club .

[Don who works in the woods]

Boy, talk about a polarized debate! I used to make a good living salvaging dead trees from the floor of the national forest, until "common sense"was trumped by "best available science" and the spotted owl pre-empted our careers. Judge Dwyer of the ninth circuit court of appeals used scientific review to place an injunction on virtually all activity in the national forest of the pacific northwest. Now most of you live in homes made of wood, so I assume you understand that there was a direct impact by environmental concerns on the free and independent north american lumber market . As far as the economy is concerned, scientists might do better to analyze the problem of people paying more for homes than they are worth, as well as more than they can afford . Those of us who have worked all our lives in the woods understand that most of those who favor species protection over the needs of our fellow man will accept any logic or legislation that promotes their agenda . Unfortunately they often start with the best intentions, but end up with a fairytale. Don't you know that this country has the best protected home for endangered species on the planet? Or have you been buying hardwood from asia dipped in the blood of third world innocents duped by corrupt officials who fake their certification of sustainable forestry? That would be the big Swedish chain or the home box store. You bought that one didnt you? at the same time you turned your back on your brother in the woods of oregon. Where do you get your food ? Chile? Mexico? One other thing we know here in the woods; you only come to visit, and you never leave the trail, that's good because the budget to keep the lights on is shrinking, and it will only get worse. I run a sawmill now, and between the tax man and the scientists, my lumber might be worth more as firewood. The only problem is that causes pollution. What goes around comes around

[Chris]

Shut up all you stupid hippies