Jim Hansen may seek end to species act
Is the black-footed ferret big enough to be saved from extinction?
It may not be, according to Rep. Jim Hansen, a Republican who represents Utah’s 1st District, which includes Cache Valley. Hansen told the Ogden Standard-Examiner the intent of Congress when it passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973 was “to protect the big stuff,” like grizzly bears and bald eagles.
As the newly-appointed chairman of the House Resources Committee, Hansen may have the power to alter the ESA and has indicated he intends to do just that.
For supporters of the ESA, this is bad news.
“All the smaller species that Jim Hansen doesn’t care for are what really keeps the planet running,” said Jim Steitz, public lands coordinator for the Utah State University Environmental Coalition of Students. “Basically, Jim Hansen does not understand the purpose of the ESA and he is, at best, scientifically illiterate.”
Not everyone is as concerned as Steitz about what will come out of Hansen’s committee. According to Randy Simmons, head of the USU Political Science department, Hansen is a shrewd politician who uses strong language to appeal to his conservative core constituency in Utah, but he knows in Washington he’ll need to compromise to get a bill through the House of Representatives.
“Jim Hansen may have shrill rhetoric, but I expect a fairly muted bill to come out of committee,” Simmons said.
Hansen’s communications director at the House Resources Committee, Marnie Funk, echoed that sentiment. She said Hansen wanted to “just sort of tweak [the ESA] a little bit,” and “with a small [Republican] majority in the House, you’re not going to see drastic change.”
There are strong feelings on both sides about whether or not the ESA needs tweaking. Opponents of the act believe it unfairly punishes private landowners by failing to compensate them after forbidding them to develop property, giving private landowners an incentive to destroy habitat that might contain endangered species rather than be subject to ESA restrictions.
“The National Association of Realtors actually has something in one of their publications about managing land to avoid endangered species,” Simmons said. “Over 50 percent of endangered species exist on private property, so you have to find a way to enlist rather than irritate landowners.”
Professor Robert Schmidt of the Fisheries and Wildlife department agrees the ESA is not perfect, but said he is concerned about what would happen if the act was tinkered with.
“Sometimes it’s the people who have taken good care of their land for generations who get punished because it’s the healthy land which often contains endangered species. The people that have those endangered species on their land are heroes and they need to treated like that,” Schmidt said.
However, Schmidt said it is better to err on the side of caution when dealing with ecosystems, and he used a quote by Aldo Leopold, an early conservationist and turn-of-the-century scientist, to illustrate his point:
“If biota in the course of eons has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”
Schmidt also said, “There’s been ample, ample, ample opportunity over the years for courts and legislators to clarify the ESA, and the definition has never been just to save ‘the big stuff.'”
The ESA has also been criticized as ineffective in saving species.
Since the act was passed in 1973, only a handful of species have been “de-listed,” meaning their numbers have recovered and they’re no longer in danger of extinction.
Simmons said he remembers an embarrassing incident involving former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit.
“Babbit called a press conference to announce the de-listing of a few species in order to highlight the success of the ESA. But I guess someone on his staff hadn’t done their homework because three of those species were de-listed due to the fact they had become extinct,” Simmons said.
Simmons said he believes the ESA is an example of a law that doesn’t really work but remains in place because most of the public doesn’t fully understand it.
“There’s mythology about the ESA. It’s a noble idea, but as far as what it’s actually done – it’s not much,” Simmons said. “There’s a lot of emotion around this issue. It’s easy for people to drop into rhetoric rather than having serious discussion about whether this act is working or not.”
Senior Scientist and Assistant Professor Barrie Gilbert of the Fisheries and Wildlife department has worked with grizzly bears for more than 30 years, and he said he believes the ESA is working as it is intended to.
“The law is designed to keep mother nature from falling apart. The important thing is forward thinking, for us to consider the implications of our actions – not doing stupid things we later regret, like eliminating species,” Gilbert said.
Gilbert said he believes Hansen is not using good science in evaluating the ESA, but rather is playing politics and serving the development interests that funded much of his re-election campaign.
“If you got a roomful of 1,000 scientists together, only a handful would want to change the ESA,” Gilbert said. “Jim Hansen hasn’t talked to us to get input on this. He wouldn’t plan on going to Mars and say, ‘I’m going to do this myself without physicists or engineers.’ But he hasn’t called us. We’re happy to help him.”