vision2020@moscow.com: Re: Endangered Species Act
Re: Endangered Species Act
Neil Meyer (NMEYER@marvin.csrv.uidaho.edu)
Fri, 9 Jun 1995 09:01:30 PST8PDT
A few thoughts on the endangered species issue.
1. If you believe in evolution, then you also believe that new
species evolve continually as the situations in which they live
change. That process has been going on since the earth was "created."
2. All of us require and use renewable and mined resources for
our livings and livelyhood. I do not know anyone who lives in a
structure that does not incorporate renewable (wood and cotton) and
nonrenewable (sand/gravel, iron, clay, copper, and cement). As long
as population continues to grow, we as a nation will need additional
housing. If we take the resources from the mines, pits, forests and
farms of other countries, we are still taking them. That bring the
point to responsible use of all resources. The current ESA results
in single species management. The prime case at present is the Snake
River Salmon. Up river communities and citizens are being asked to
give up their lifestyles, livelyhoods and assets because of decisions
made by others (often without verifialbe basis) an without
compensation. It would be comparable for the people of rural
Idaho to declare all urban freeways bike/hiking paths. The decision
which locals had no input on would change the institutional setting
from encouraging the resource use to prohibiting it. The dams are a
major cause of fingerling mortality but the dams were given a no
jeopardy ruling. I would argue a case of political power
of the al industry, irrigators, urban interests and Tom Foley.
Management requires all who use the resources to use them in a way
that protects them and other resources for future generations. The
term sustainability comes to mind.
3. My suggestion is (a) that the ESA be changed to use scientific
data instead of "scientist's opinion" in forming policy, (b) that
local areas affected be given participation in drafting recovery
plans. (In many cases locals know more about the local situation than
the experts.), (c) That proceedures be set up to identify threatened
groups earlier so possibilities of recovery or protection of systems
are feasible. That changing institutions (IE from encouraging use to
limiting or stopping use) be phased in with over a period of years.
I welcome outlines for discussion of proposed ESA changes. The
current law is very arrogant in that one group changes policy and
imposes drastic effects on other people and their livelyhood without
their having a chance to defend or influence the resulting decision.
In effect saying I know whats best for you irrespective of what you
think. I personally do not appreciate doing business that way.
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet