Scientists: Endangered Species Act Rewrite Must Be Science-Based

WASHINGTON, DC, March 8, 2006 (ENS) - Over 5,700 scientists with biological expertise have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate in an effort to ensure that the Endangered Species Act, which they call the "cornerstone of the United States' most basic environmental protections," continues to conserve biodiversity by using the best available science.

The letter, carrying signatures from scientists in every state and over 900 institutions, was hand-delivered to each of the 100 senators today. In addition, several scientists personally delivered the letter and met with the senators and staff from their home states to discuss the importance of science and scientists to the Endangered Species Act.

Enacted in 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is up for reauthorization in Congress. A version passed last year by the House of Representatives, and authored by California Congressman Richard Pombo, a Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, has been sent to the Senate. There it will come up first before the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Endangered gray wolf wears a radio tracking collar in Yellowstone National Park. Lifting ESA protections for wolves is a controversial issue. (Photo by William Campbell courtesy USFWS)

"As Earth has changed and as science has progressed since the Endangered Species Act was authorized in 1973," they wrote, "the ESA has served our nation well, largely because of its flexibility and its solid foundation in science. It is crucial to maintain these fundamental principles. The challenges of effective implementation of the Act should not be interpreted to require substantive rewriting of this valuable, well-functioning piece of legislation."

In a telephone press conference today, several of the signatory scientists said the Pombo bill limits the types species that can be protected and the circumstances in which they can be protected.

They warn that the Pombo bill prohibits the use of computer models in projecting the outcome of scientific management techniques.

Professor Emeritus of Biology with the University of Washington, Dr. Gordon Orians said, "Pombo says thou shalt not use models, only empirical investigation, but everyone knows the only way to project future probability is that scientists must use models."

Dr. Gordon Orians, professor emeritus of biology with the University of Washington (Photo courtesy Brainerd Foundation)

The letter, representing scientists from all 50 states and six National Medal of Science recipients, asks Congress to stop trying to weaken the Endangered Species Act and highlights the importance of independent scientific principles that are critical to species conservation.

"By limiting the science that can be used to enforce the ESA, the House of Representatives has put endangered species at even greater risk," said Dr. Dennis Murphy, research professor at the University of Nevada, Reno on the conference call. "Losing these species means losing the potential to solve some of the world’s most intractable problems. Species diversity has provided humankind with food, fiber, medicines, clean water, and numerous other services that many of us take for granted."

Endangered California Least Tern (Photo by Ryan Hagerty courtesy USFWS)

"The Endangered Species Act has been effective because it is based on good science," said Dr. Orians. "Since it was enacted, less than one percent of species listed under the ESA have gone extinct, while 10 percent of species waiting to be listed have been lost."

But the Senate Republican leadership appears to approve of the Pombo bill. Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented in September 2005, “I share Mr. Pombo's belief that the ESA has not achieved all of its objectives and has, in many cases, led to dire consequences for landowners and species alike."

"I believe that it is essential that Congress pass legislation that would update and improve the ESA to focus on the recovery of species, while safeguarding private property rights. We should do this by working cooperatively with all stakeholders, especially private land owners on whose land more than 70 percent of species depend for their habitat," said Inhofe.

Congressman Richard Pombo of California authored the bill the scientists are warning against. (Photo courtesy Office of the Congressman)

Due to a "strictly voluntary" study of the birds' behavior over three years by the the Colorado Farm Bureau, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory and the Nature Conservancy, Foutz testified, "Researchers found that rather than destroying habitat, agricultural activity actually provided important nesting habitat for the species, and many of the agricultural practices that would have been restricted under an ESA listing were actually beneficial for the plovers."

"The mountain plover success story would not have been a success if the plover has already been listed" under the Endangered Species Act, the press release states.

Mountain plover stands in a field. These insect-eating Neotropical migrants breed on grasslands. (Photo by Eric Boyd courtesy USGS)

But scientists who signed the letter delivered to the Senate today believe that the Endangered Species Act is not broken.

"The Endangered Species Act is scientifically sound and its goals are important to human well-being. We should improve its performance, not reduce its protections," said marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who serves as Valley Professor of Marine Biology and Distinguished Professor of Zoology at Oregon State University; is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur Fellow; past president, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Ecological Society of America, and International Council for Science.

"To weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered Species Act is to doom more species to extinction," said ecologist Dr. Walter V. Reid, consulting professor, Institute for the Environment, Stanford University; who is also a former director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and past board member, Society for Conservation Biology.

Dr. Stuart Pimm, who holds the Doris Duke Chair of Conservation Biology at Duke University, said on the conference call that the revision of the Endangered Species Act to exclude scientific processes is part of a wider attitude in the Bush administration that disregards science in favor of politics.

Dr. Stuart Pimm is a conservation biologist at Duke University. (Photo courtesy Key West Botanical Garden)

But it is "broader than the Bush administration," he said, and it is serious. We even have intelligent design people who want unverified data to be included in scientific studies."

In an attempt to bridge this gap, the Keystone Center held three consultative meetings from November through January at the joint request of Senators Inhofe, and Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican; Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat; and Jim Jeffords, a Vermont Independent.

Joining the Keystone request were Senators Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, and Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, who introduced the Senate legislation to revise the Endangered Species Act.

They asked the Keystone Center to convene a working group representing all stakeholders. Co-chaired by Richard Burton of the MeadWestvaco Corporation and Rodger Schlickeisen of Defenders of Wildlife, the group addressed three questions:

1. As currently written and implemented, is the ESA adequately protecting and conserving the habitat listed species need to recover?

2. If not, how can the ESA be improved to better conserve habitat and help species recover?

3. What specific changes and recommendations can the regulated and NGO communities jointly recommend, advocate for, and help implement?

An endangered jagarundi. This species of small cat survives in southern Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. (Photo by Gary Halvorsen courtesy USFWS)

Conserving endangered species is becoming an increasingly difficult job, considering the increasing pressures on habitat from threats such as global climate change and human population growth. This Keystone dialogue will help Congress navigate this difficult terrain," wrote John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation.

The group recommended new provisions for integrating habitat protection and conservation into the Endangered Species Act to replace the current critical habitat framework; a greater focus on the function, content, scope, and mechanics of recovery plans; more effective incentives for non-federal parties, and new sources of funding for better coordinated and more workable ESA provisions pertaining to habitat.

Read the scientists' letter online at: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/restoring/biologists-letter-on.html

Find out more about the Keystone process at: http://www.keystone.org/spp/env-esa-faqs.html