Statement of Senator
Craig Thomas
Committee on Environment
and Public Works
Hearing on Listing and
Delisting Processes of the Endangered Species
Act
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing on this important topic. In
Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting
processes of the Endangered Species Act.
Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data
that has been peer-reviewed.
Unfortunately, none of this is true regarding the current administration
of the ESA. To date, 1,243 species have
been listed in the U.S. under the Endangered Species Act. 20-25 have been delisted. Clearly, the system is broken.
Not long ago, the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse
was listed in the State of Wyoming, yet the listing process for this mouse
demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings of
the Preble=s Rule relates to
confusion about claims regarding the Aknown range@ as opposed to the alleged Ahistorical range@ of the mouse. Historical data and current knowledge do not
support the high, short-grass, semi-arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part
of the mouse=s historical habitat
range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and
ranges. Further, the state was not properly
notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off
guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are
required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately needed to
the Endangered Species Act.
Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the
black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to
list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I=ve lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I=ve logged a lot of miles
on the roads and highways in my state over the years. I can tell you from experience, there is no shortage of prairie
dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher
will concur with that opinion. This
petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, make it painfully clear that some folks are
intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the
cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic
survival.
I
believe we should take action to require the Secretary of the Interior to use
scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and
peer-reviewed. Right now, it=s a Apostage stamp@ petition: any person
who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no
scientific support. I have introduced
legislation, S. 347 to prevent this absurd practice by establishing minimum
requirements for a listing petition that includes an analyses of the status of
the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer
reviewed. In order to list a species,
the Secretary needs to determine if sufficient biological information exists in
the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, states are made
active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more
substantial role.
Unfortunately, I have found that with several
listings in the state of Wyoming, the Department of the Interior was unable to
tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery.
The Agency could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to
face as a consequence of listing. This
is troubling since the agency is supposed to be fully apprized of the status of
the species. Conversely, if the Agency
cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we
can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact,
threatened?
This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration
to the people of Wyoming. If the
Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or the diversion
of a certain amount of water, or a private citizen's development of one's own
property, is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those
activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate
what activities should be restricted,
then why list a species? Why open
producers and others to the burden of over‑zealous enforcement and even
litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species?
Mr. Chairman, we must ultimately seek to design
a system to support and improve the
quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, we should also
know enough about what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, unfortunelty it is not
the case today.
Just as the beginning of the process needs
changes, we need to revise the end of the processBthe de-listing procedure. Recovery and delisting are quite simply, the
goals of the Endangered Species Act.
Yet, currently, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. There
is no certainty in the process and the statesBthe folks who have all the responsibility
for managing the species once it is off the list Bare not true partners in that
process. Once the recovery plan is met,
the species should be de-listed.
Wyoming=s experience with the Grizzly Bear pinpoints
some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set
criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been
met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We=ve been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over
this one to no avail, despite tremendous effort and financial resources to meet
recovery objectives. Even with
rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that something needs
to be done. My constituents are angry
and upset about the current situation and the trickling effects of countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some real changes. The changes I=ve suggested will have a significant
affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery, and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let=s not lose sight of the real goalBrecovery and delisting.
Thank
you.