With the ESA, the debates on species and habitat protection usually focus on the use of ‘sound science’. As in the delisting of the gray wolf case, the ability to produce ‘sound science’ is not the core of the debate. Instead, the selection of which science is considered the ‘sound science’ is the base of the lawsuit. Questioning the ‘science’ is a maneuver by the environmental groups to challenge the political motivations in setting relatively low recovery goals and the manipulations of scientific information.
Since the ESA was established, critical habitat protections have directly clashed with the rights of property owners in many cases. In the 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America, the document acknowledged that “successes under ESA have been limited due to confrontation and polarization”; FWS’s ability to protect and recover endangered species are hindered by litigation. The Republican proposal called for “results-based cooperative conservation programs and voluntary agreements that encourage private stewardship”, it prompted peer-reviewed science and more consideration on private property rights.
Despite the correct evaluation of the situation and the two reasonable suggestions to deal with the problems, the ESA is still a dividing issue with more polarization in recent years. By bringing more scientists into the discussion, more diverse scientific perspectives will be available. With ill intention, it means that there are more options to choose from in fitting the political agenda. By framing critical habitat protection as a property rights infringement, the interests of endangered species become direct threats to landowners.
So, before we question the validity of science, should we take a step back and understand our values towards endangered species? Are there any intrinsic values in them? Are there any instrumental values in them? How should we compare those values against our other needs? How can our policies reflect the societal values towards endangered species?
When the ESA was up for reauthorization in 2001, then-House Resources Committee chairman James Hansen said “We haven’t reauthorized it because no one could agree on how to reform and modernize the law. Everyone agrees there are problems with the Act, but no one can agree on how to fix them”. Undoubtedly, the “no one can agree on” part is not referring to ‘sound science’ by rather our societal values.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Joanna,
I think your understanding of critical habitat is a little off. I think you understand critical habitat as it was intended when the act was written, but today critical habitat has very little additional value. The reason is because in 1975, the FWS promulgated a rule which defined harm as habitat modification. Here's the pertinent part of the rule:
Harm in the definition of 'take' in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
FWS was sued that this definition was overly broad, but the Supreme Court agreed with the FWS in the case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon.
The practical result of the case is that habitat modification is considered harming a protected species. Because this definition is so expansive, critical habitat has little additional value.
So it isn't just critical habitat protections that threaten people's ability to control their property, but the presence of endangered species.
I don't think Rep. Hansen was talking about societal values as much as he was talking about how to actual improve the ESA's ability to increase the number of endangered and threatened species. Hansen wants to see the use of more incentives, but environmentalists refuse to include incentives in the law because they value endangered species more than property rights. If these are the societal value you are talking about, then I agree.
Post a Comment