 |
|
|
|
This entire document can be downloaded in Word Format: Click Here
ESA 2 -- Draft Ideas For Improving The ESA
Below is a draft list of principles or positions that some of our members in the Grassroots ESA Coalition feel should be included in legislation to update and modernize the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
They are generally in a very rough order of priority that has not been approved by the Grassroots ESA Coalition Steering Committee. It is sent to you as a discussion list and nothing more.
We are asking you to read these ideas and send us your suggestions for prioritizing this list. We want you to edit this list and put numbers by the ones you think are most important. Your most important should be number one. The highest number should be the least important.
When the Grassroots ESA Coalition finalizes its priority list, some of these issues will be left off simply because there are too many now to effectively carry our message to Congress and the country.
Your suggestions are important. So if you think we've left something out, get back to us as quickly as possible with your written suggestion.
Be aware these are ideas. Some may be included in future legislation drafts. They may be part of one or several bills. They may not make the cut at all. But they are a start in making sure this wish list is considered and that we as a group have an opportunity to discuss each point and push those we are most energized about.
-----1. Property Rights: The Act should require compensation for
regulatory takings. Federal agencies should be subject to a statutorily
directed preference for using voluntary, un-coerced contracts with
property owners for a temporary lease or agreement to manage land for
the benefit of a listed species. A deal is a deal, the government should
be bound by any agreement it makes with a landowner.
-----2. Incentives: Use Voluntary, Contractual, Compensated Habitat
Management that would increase the quality of wildlife habitat while
lessening the conservation disincentives contained in current law.
Exempt a property owner from land use regulation when his management
practices create or maintain habitat for endangered species. Create an
ESA version of the CRP and require a substantial part of funding go to
the ESA/CRP program.
-----3. Make Safe Harbor agreements user friendly and truly safe.
-----4. The definition of "take" should be changed to require a direct
and proximate connection between the action and the loss of a specific
individual member of a listed species.
-----5. Science: The definition of species should incorporate new
scientific information on the genetic make-up of species. Require
independent peer review of the science used in listing.
-----6. Require Independent Scientific Review, what some have called “sound science.”
-----7. Conservation of subspecies and distinct populations should be
actively promoted but these categories should not be covered by the
regulatory parts of the Act. Species that are beneficial or unique
should be given priority.
-----8. Economic Considerations: Base listing decisions on science,
but subject any restrictions to consideration of economic and social
factors. Require ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES.
-----9. A sunset provision should be added to ESA so the act expires
after 5 years unless re-authorized. Require species to be re-listed or dropped
from the list after 10 years.
-----10. Requiring completion or amendment of recovery plans before designating critical habitat.
-----11. Require that any listing or critical habitat designations be based on
actual verified field data demonstrating the presence of the species and
not based on scientific "hypothesis" that the species may one day be
present.
-----12. Amend the definition of critical habitat to require that FWS find the
area itself is essential to the conservation of the species and requires
special management measures based on actual verifiable field data and
not simply because FWS has found that the species Primary Constituent
Elements (PCEs) are present.
-----13. Require FWS to utilize data developed by State, local and regional
wildlife agencies in making Critical Habitat and listing decisions.
-----14. Require the FWS to work on recovery not just listing more
species.
-----15. Require regionally even enforcement. Fairy shrimp-like
crustaceans, for example, occur in eastern metropolitan areas and
although they are more endangered than California fairy shrimp, the FWS
refuses to list them.
-----16. Federalism. The general primacy of state authority over
wildlife should recognized in ESA.
-----17. Reimburse agencies for ESA costs from the FWS budget.
-----18. Place restrictions on introduced, experimental populations.
-----19. Expedite permits. Secretary must issue or deny within 90
days.
-----20. Exemptions for human health and safety and permitted
activities.
-----21. Add transparency, openness and privacy protection provisions.
-----22. Consider, analyze and test alternative recovery strategies.
-----23. Include landowners in decision-making.
-----24. Have a no-net-loss of private property provision.
For More Information Contact:
American Land Rights Association
Tel: 360-687-3087 - FAX: 360-687-2973
Email us with questions or comments about this web site.
All pages on this website are ©1999-2006, American Land Rights Association. Permission is granted to use any and all information herein, as long as credit is given to ALRA
