Legislation aimed at limiting the reach of the Endangered Species Act comes up Tuesday in the House Natural Resources Committee, where Democrats lack the votes to counter any GOP moves on the act.
Among the bills the committee plans to markup are:
* A measure by U.S. Rep. Pete Olson, a Republican from Texas, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require review of the economic cost of adding a species to the list of endangered or threatened species.
* A proposal by U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington state, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require making available all data that is the basis of a determination of endangered or threatened species to states affected by the determination.
* A measure by U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that nonnative species in the United States shall not be treated as endangered species or threatened species.
Also on the committee's agenda is legislation to delist the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes and Wyoming from Endangered Species Act protection, and block any legal efforts to overturn the delisting. The measure was introduced by Rep. Collin Peterson, a member of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.
Rep. Peter Visclosky, a Democrat from Indiana, has asked the committee to approve legislation to rename Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore as Indiana Dunes National Park.
The committee meeting gets under way at 4 p.m. Tuesday in the Longworth House Office Building.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Ugh.
Common sense, good science and a half century of very hard work are being trumped.
Lets see. They want to consider the economic cost, have all the data and not protect weeds. And people object? Who is trumping common sense and good science.
They want all the data so they can slander the people that prepare it and attack those that give the opionions. This is attack on science plain and simple.
As for the cost, then we should consider the cost of EVERYTHING. Trips to MaraLargo, $5m a pop. Putting people in prison costs $100k a year, maybe we should not do that. Forcing someone to raise an unwanted child $250,000 I guess we better keep abortion legal. It's a poor argument. Since when does the dollar carry more weight that God's creation.
Perhaps my "favorite" of the bunch:
We do consider the cost in most instances. We consider the cost of protecting the President (no matter who) as worthwhile. We consider putting someone in prison for $100k preferable to killing them or letting them continue a reign of crime and many consider the life of a child worth more than $250,000, not to mention the alternative of adoption. (Kind of ironic that you appear to endorse killing one of God's creations to save $250,000) To ignore the cost is absurd and to hide the data is just a page from the climate change playbook.
Troll alert!
Some reading comprehension lessons are needed. Read Bill's comment again.
Read again and my reply stands as written.
The cost of not putting a creature or plant on the endangered species list would have to be calculated to include all the costs to the entire ecosystem, from now until thousands of years from now, if that living thing were to disappear and thus cease performing all the ecosystem services that it provides. This of course, would have to include the cost of losing other living things that relied on the species in question, and the living things that relied on those living things. This is why the endangered species act was created in the first place. To protect entire systems of life on which we ourselves, as biological creatures, depend for our very lives. What is the cost of having clean oxygen to breathe? What is the cost of having clean water to drink? What is the cost of losing an apex predator such as the wolf and having an entire ecosystem be overgrazed by the elk that the wolf once kept in check? Who is going to calculate these costs? Businessmen who don't know the difference between a wolf and a coyote?
This is what happens when profit becomes a prime motive.
"More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction) yet we seem to be getting along just fine. How many will we save with the endangered species act? Yes cost is a factor. Do I want to see the wolf disappear? No, and the cost to save it probably aren't all that high. For other species, including invasive ones, the cost, direct and indirect, might be much higher relative to their planatary contribution and those costs should be taken into consideration.
The fact that most species who have ever lived have gone extinct is not the most relevant fact. If the dinosaurs had not gone extinct, we would most likely not be here, as their absence opened up niches for mammals to evolve and fluorish.....However, the relevant fact is that the rate of extinction has increased enormously, so that scientists can now say that we are living in the Sixth Period of Mass Extinction. The other five were caused by cataclysmic events such as an asteroid slamming into the earth, intense periods of volcanism, etc. . This extinction event is caused entirely by humans--through habitat loss due to pollution, humans taking over land areas, deforestation, desertification, outright killing, producing carbon (and other) emissions that are changing the climate, and many other actions and behaviors of ours that affect other species. The extinctions that are happening now are occurring at a rate unprecedented in the last 200,000 years. And the true relevance to us is that we are living now, and it is the particular array of species on the planet now that create the environment in which we evolved and to which we are adapted. The planet won't care if all these species go extinct. Others are likely to evolve. But we will care because we are likely to be among the ones who go missing. We are not "getting along just fine" right now. The entire planet is changing and we are responsible.
"For other species, including invasive ones, the cost, direct and indirect, might be much higher relative to their planatary contribution and those costs should be taken into consideration."
And who is to make that determination? And how?
ecbuck still does not see that he read it wrong
It's an eye condition called Factual Myopia. It's a common type of near-blindness among many practioners of certain political and economic ideologies.
Here's an excellent example: "More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. "
Although it is true, that comment shows a complete lack of knowledge about the history of life on earth. There's a whole lot more to the story than that. The total fallacy of our Esteemed Comrade's trolling can be exposed by simply reading the rest of the article from which this paragraph was cherry picked.
There is absolutely no point in trying to reason or argue with one suffering from Factual Myopia. It's a type of blindness caused by refusal to see and understand facts instead of inability to do so.
"Don't feed the trolls".
Argalite, please elaborate. Tell me what I read wrong.
The same people that make that determination now, in the same way they do now with the added element of determining and factoring the cost.
The authors of the Endangered Species Act wisely recognized that a finding of whether or not a species is endangered or threatened is a factual one -- that is, it should be based on a scientific evaluation of the species' biological status. What comes next is a different question. What will it cost to recover a listed species? By law, such a determination is already required. Some species spend an unfortunately long time on the endangered species list because the funding provided for recovery by Congress is very limited.
Olson's bill is a transparent attempt to hamstring the ESA. Estimates of the potential future economic impacts of listing a species are speculative at best. How far ahead are scientists supposed to forecast the costs? Who can know what future threats to the species or its habitat will materialize, adding to those costs? And, as one of the previous posters pointed out, what about the costs of not listing a species? Many provide vital ecosystem services upon which we all depend. Olson seems to want to know the cost of everything but not its value.
thanks, Mike B.!
The one thing I would add is that many species end up as "candidate species", defined as species with sufficient data to support listing as threatened or endangered, but there are so many other higher priority species that they don't get listed, let alone get recovery plans.
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/candidate_species.pdf
Olsen's bill raises the cost of listing for each species, thus constricting the bottleneck from candidate to threatened even further unless the bill provides FWS additional funding (it doesn't).