Endangered Species Act Less Endangered

More signs today of a return to policy supported by science rather than science perverted to the will of policy.

Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced that the two departments are revoking an eleventh-hour Bush administration rule that undermined Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections. Their decision requires federal agencies to once again consult with federal wildlife experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – the two agencies that administer the ESA – before taking any action that may affect threatened or endangered species.

“By rolling back this 11th hour regulation, we are ensuring that threatened and endangered species continue to receive the full protection of the law,” Salazar said. “Because science must serve as the foundation for decisions we make, federal agencies proposing to take actions that might affect threatened and endangered species will once again have to consult with biologists at the two departments.”

["Salazar and Locke Restore Scientific Consultations under the Endangered Species Act to Protect Species and their Habitats", NOAA Press Release, 28 April 2009.]

Posted on April 28, 2009 at 20.24 by jns · Permalink
In: All, Current Events, It's Only Rocket Science, Speaking of Science

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by rightsaidfred
    on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 at 09.02
    Permalink

    "federal wildlife experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" = political hacks.

    Nothing has been gained.

    Carry on as usual.

  2. Written by jns
    on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 at 10.52
    Permalink

    I think my favorite actual political hack, during the previous "administration", was the young "Philip A. Cooney, chief of staff for [Bush] White House Council on Environmental Quality, [who] had repeatedly edited government climate reports to cast doubt on generally accepted scientific findings that were deemed to conflict with White House policy. Mr. Cooney, a White House aide who had previously been an oil-industry lobbyist fighting limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, had no scientific training; he quickly resigned when these facts were revealed." [source, and note #4 in that article]

  3. Written by rightsaidfred
    on Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 06.41
    Permalink

    Yes, how gauche of Bush to be so transparent. The opposition is sure to supply a veneer of scientific training so their hacks can operate unfettered by unwanted attention.

  4. Written by jns
    on Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10.55
    Permalink

    You can be a science naysayer / nonbeliever if you like, but your cell phone, computer, refrigerator, and major means of transportation will continue to work in spite of what you think. I still prefer my science done by actual scientists, done in the tradition of actual scientific transparency and openness, and overtly reality-based.

  5. Written by rightsaidfred
    on Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11.22
    Permalink

    'Scuse me as I finish carving my wooden shoe with stone tools…

    I'm with you on the value of science, but in my neck of the woods the Endangered Species Act is a weapon for bureaucrats and other Luddites to grab power and inhibit development. Notice how photogenic, top of the food chain species such as wolves, grizzly bears, and bald eagles get lots of attention while lower but maybe more critical species get bupkis.

  6. Written by jns
    on Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11.53
    Permalink

    Valid complaints, if you ask me, and I don't know where I would decide if I had to.

    However, I object strenuously to blaming the science that tries to answer the questions it is asked in a dispassionate, realistic way. "Is a species endangered?" is a valid question. What to do with the answer is a matter of policy that the science doesn't decide and that must be decided based on many arguments, but it's a different, political debate. The Bush administration was wrong to try to manipulate scientific results in favor of its policy objectives.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply

To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.

I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.