Print
E-mail
Rate
The most dangerous man in America
Is U.S. Rep Richard Pombo, R-Calif., the most dangerous man in America? He is if you are an endangered species.
Pombo, a seven-term congressman serving a district dominated by agricultural and ranching interests, has had a single mission since he was first elected: the complete destruction of the single most important piece of legislation of the 20th century, the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The ESA is one of the few bulwarks that stands between defenseless species and the human hordes that are determined to subdue, subvert and subdivide Mother Nature into complete submission.
In late September, after trying for more than a decade but never finding the support, Pombo managed to pass sweeping changes to the ESA, changes that could cause hundreds of extinctions and lead to the destruction of vital habitat in every corner of the United States. And while a bipartisan group worked to save the ESA, it failed by nearly 40 votes.
What do we stand to lose? Since being drafted in 1973, the ESA has protected and saved from extinction more than 1,300 species, including the grizzly bear, the sea otter and the gray wolf. Oh, yeah, and the bald eagle, America's national bird, now flies over every state thanks to the ESA.
But I guess Pombo isn't much of a patriot. His bill will undermine species recovery, eliminate habitat protection and exempt pesticides from environmental review. Its most toxic aspect is that it politicizes the science used to protect species by allowing political appointees, not scientists, to decide what science should be used.
Pombo did not stop there. He included a provision that could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars by allowing corporations to assert that they have been harmed by the ESA over the past 30 years and to claim speculative damages out of the portion of the federal budget earmarked for national parks, wildlife refuges and species protection. The bill actually encourages developers to propose construction in vital habitat and then will pay them not to do it. Locally, this provision could hit the budgets of Cumberland Island National Seashore and Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge very hard.
The Endangered Species Act is not perfect. Few species have ever been completely removed from its protections once they are listed, but this is not the fault of the act. Part of the problem is that most species can't get onto the list until they are critically imperiled and the other part is that most species declines are due to habitat destruction, something that takes decades or even longer to recover.
Pombo's bill has been passed over to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Cooler and more rational heads usually prevail in that body. I hope this morally indefensible corporate welfare bill will die a quiet death there, but that won't stop Pombo from reintroducing it next session.
A sensible update of the ESA, should a more moderate representative wish to take on the task, should include some incentives to landowners to preserve species and habitat and let states have more of a say in species protection.
(Jonathan Maziarz is the editor of the Tribune & Georgian and a regular Friday columnist. He doesn't think there are many Americans who'd like to live in a country where the only places you could see a bald eagle would be in a zoo or on a postage stamp.)
Pombo, a seven-term congressman serving a district dominated by agricultural and ranching interests, has had a single mission since he was first elected: the complete destruction of the single most important piece of legislation of the 20th century, the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The ESA is one of the few bulwarks that stands between defenseless species and the human hordes that are determined to subdue, subvert and subdivide Mother Nature into complete submission.
In late September, after trying for more than a decade but never finding the support, Pombo managed to pass sweeping changes to the ESA, changes that could cause hundreds of extinctions and lead to the destruction of vital habitat in every corner of the United States. And while a bipartisan group worked to save the ESA, it failed by nearly 40 votes.
What do we stand to lose? Since being drafted in 1973, the ESA has protected and saved from extinction more than 1,300 species, including the grizzly bear, the sea otter and the gray wolf. Oh, yeah, and the bald eagle, America's national bird, now flies over every state thanks to the ESA.
But I guess Pombo isn't much of a patriot. His bill will undermine species recovery, eliminate habitat protection and exempt pesticides from environmental review. Its most toxic aspect is that it politicizes the science used to protect species by allowing political appointees, not scientists, to decide what science should be used.
Pombo did not stop there. He included a provision that could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars by allowing corporations to assert that they have been harmed by the ESA over the past 30 years and to claim speculative damages out of the portion of the federal budget earmarked for national parks, wildlife refuges and species protection. The bill actually encourages developers to propose construction in vital habitat and then will pay them not to do it. Locally, this provision could hit the budgets of Cumberland Island National Seashore and Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge very hard.
The Endangered Species Act is not perfect. Few species have ever been completely removed from its protections once they are listed, but this is not the fault of the act. Part of the problem is that most species can't get onto the list until they are critically imperiled and the other part is that most species declines are due to habitat destruction, something that takes decades or even longer to recover.
Pombo's bill has been passed over to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Cooler and more rational heads usually prevail in that body. I hope this morally indefensible corporate welfare bill will die a quiet death there, but that won't stop Pombo from reintroducing it next session.
A sensible update of the ESA, should a more moderate representative wish to take on the task, should include some incentives to landowners to preserve species and habitat and let states have more of a say in species protection.
(Jonathan Maziarz is the editor of the Tribune & Georgian and a regular Friday columnist. He doesn't think there are many Americans who'd like to live in a country where the only places you could see a bald eagle would be in a zoo or on a postage stamp.)
 |
 |
|
| Economic plan provides road map for county's future | Commissioners’ ego war isn’t helping the county |
