Good News for Endangered Species

Klamath River, Oregon.
Photo by Dave Menke, USFWS.
Click on image for a MUCH larger view in its own window.

Do you wonder what happened with that online letter to the US Senate that I posted to my blog awhile ago, soliciting scientists' signatures regarding the upcoming rewrite of the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA)?

I finally have some good news to share with you.

As some of you might remember, the 1973 ESA is currently being considered for reauthorization by congress, and a rewrite by California Congressman Richard Pombo, a Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, was sent to the Senate. As scientists and conservationists (and many others) see things, the Pombo Bill is bad for managing endangered species because if it is passed, it will undermine the role of science in making conservation decisions, it will limit input from good science by shortening the period of time available for gathering the data necessary for making conservation decisions, and it will effectively reduce the role of science and scientists in managing endangered species.

Well, there was a tremendous response; more than 5700 signatures were collected from scientists working at more than 900 institutions located in every state of the union. Several scientists hand-delivered this letter as they met with the senators from their states to discuss the importance of relying on science for designing effective strategies to protect endangered species. Basically, scientists think that the ESA is fine the way it is, or they want its protections to be strengthened.

"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 Jane Lubchenco, who is the 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.

In an effort to bridge the gap between the current administration and the public, the Keystone Center, a nonprofit organization that seeks to proactively and creatvely address scientific and environmental dilemmas, convened a working group that represented all stakesholders affected by the ESA, and they specifically 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?

Their conclusions? This group, which included environmental groups, businesses, academics and foundations, concluded that the ESA does not offer adequate protection and conservion for habitat that listed species need to recover.

Thanks, Judith!