Bush administration reinterprets species law

[Nicholas]

Bush administration reinterprets species law
Officials say endangered wildlife will be helped, activists plan to sue

Updated: 8:20 a.m. CT March 19, 2007
GRANTS PASS, Ore. - Tired of losing lawsuits brought by conservation groups, the Bush administration issued a new interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that would allow it to protect plants and animals only in areas where they are struggling to survive, while ignoring places they are healthy or have already died out.

The opinion by U.S. Department of Interior Solicitor David Bernhardt was posted with no formal announcement on the department's Web site on Friday.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, contacted in Washington, D.C., said the new policy would allow them to focus on protecting species in areas where they are in trouble, rather than having to list a species over its entire range.

Source and More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17687161/

These changes strike me as being a bad idea to begin with, but I find it somewhat teling that the U.S. Department of Interior Solicitor is complaining about how they've lost so many lawsuits.

[The Laughing Man]

that would allow it to protect plants and animals only in areas where they are struggling to survive, while ignoring places they are healthy or have already died out

And the problem with this is...what? When you have areas of crime in a city, you don't increase police presence in areas where crime is not happening. You concentrate your patrols in the crime-ridden areas. Anything else is a waste of money and manpower.

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the problem with this is...what? When you have areas of crime in a city, you don't increase police presence in areas where crime is not happening. You concentrate your patrols in the crime-ridden areas. Anything else is a waste of money and manpower.

Why do I continue to click on 'view post'?!

[The Laughing Man]

Why do I continue to click on 'view post'?!

Because deep down inside you know you want the truth.

[Crow]

It kinda makes sense to me that you would spend your money where it can do the most good--where a species is having difficulties--rather than where it is getting along just fine without intervention.

I'm not so OK with the "where it they have died out" part. By that standard, condors would be protected nowhere, and eagles in a very limited area. When an endangered species begins to return to an portion of it's former range I think it should receive protected there as well.

[Nicholas]

And the problem with this is...what? When you have areas of crime in a city, you don't increase police presence in areas where crime is not happening. You concentrate your patrols in the crime-ridden areas. Anything else is a waste of money and manpower.

It's a problem because of this:

Since at least 2000, Interior lawyers have gone to court claiming that a species could be listed based on a portion of its range only if disappearing from that portion of its range threatens its continued survival everywhere, Bernhardt said.

It sounds as if they're trying to say that a species can go extinct in one area as long as it's alive in another.

[The Laughing Man]

It's a problem because of this:



It sounds as if they're trying to say that a species can go extinct in one area as long as it's alive in another.

No, they're actually not saying that. See, if a species doing well in an area suddenly starts not doing so well, then the USDoI would have to start helping the animals in that area.

[Nicholas]

No, they're actually not saying that. See, if a species doing well in an area suddenly starts not doing so well, then the USDoI would have to start helping the animals in that area.

Except for the part where they actually said that. The article states that the U.S. Department of Interior Solicitor made that claim.

According to the linked PDF file conaining the Secretaries actual opinion, it states:

Under the Department's interpretation, there is only one situation in which the Secretary must find a species to be an endangered species--when the Secretary finds that it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

(The file link is here: http://www.doi.gov/solicitor/M37013.pdf)

[Conductor42]

Actually, this makes sense to me. Why protect something in an area it does not need to be protected? Over protecting something can upset the balance of things just as underprotecting something can.

That being said, I'd like to see exactly how they plan to act, because I have a feeling that what the summary says will be different from what the administration actually plans on doing.

[Conductor42]

Why do I continue to click on 'view post'?!

For the same reason that Conservatives watched Farenheight 911 (sp?)