How has the ESA Impacted America?

. There have been numerous examples of how the ESA has had adverse impacts throughout the country. From Oklahoma where a thirteen mile highway project was delayed for four years because American burying beetles were found along two proposed routes, to Kentucky where loggers lost their jobs when the Forest Service shut down logging in the Daniel Boone National Forest for eight months in order to protect the red-cockaded woodpecker; people all over the country have felt the sting of the ESA's rigid enforcement.

The environmental community, and to some extent the government agencies responsible for protecting listed species as well, have attempted to dismiss these stories and other like them as "hearsay" and "fairy tales". But these stories are true, and they show just how draconian the curent law can be and where changes need to be made.

Below are additional examples of how the current implementation of the ESA has adversely impacted people all across the country. If you have been impacted by the ESA's implementation, let us know. Tell us your stories!

Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) delayed for years the construction of the San Bernardino Medical Center in California. The project was delayed because of FWS concerns over its impact on the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly — a large orange and black fly which feeds on flower nectar.

In order to win the permission of the FWS to build the needed medical complex,




The City of San Bernardino had to spend $3,310,199 to mitigate for the presence of eight flies;
The site of the hospital had to be shifted 250 feet;
Eight of the project's 64 acres had to be set aside as a fly preserve, surrounded by a chain link fence dotted with "No Trespassing" signs; and
The City of San Bernardino had to finance a five year, $480,000, study of the flies.

Construction has also been halted on a subdivision in nearby Fontana, California, because the fly lives on some of the property. Officials worry that a significant portion of $10 million in municipal bonds issued for the project will go unpaid.
Potentially most costly of all, the planned Agua Mansa Enterprise Zone, a massive industrial development that would be built on and around fly habitat, is stalled and so too are the 20,000 jobs its proponents say would be created over the next 15 years.

NBC Nightly News — February 14, 1997
Washington Post — April 4, 1997

Was that a question or a speech.?

Commonly Asked Questions About the Endangered Species Act

. Simply stated, the Endangered Species Act is the most powerful environmental law ever enacted.
Originally adopted in 1973, the Act's framers envisioned a law which would protect species believed to be on the brink of extinction. When the law was enacted, there were 109 species listed for protection. Today, there are roughly 1,300 on the list, with 250 species considered as "Candidates" for listing, and nearly 4,000 species designated as "Species of Concern".

Is it true that the ESA has expired?
The authorization for funding under the ESA expired on October 1, 1992, though Congress has appropriated funds in each succeeding fiscal year to keep the program running.

Have any species ever been delisted?
Unfortunately, the ESA has failed at recovering and delisting species since it's inception. Only 25 domestic species have been "delisted" or removed from the species list since 1973 — seven due to extinction and twelve due to "data error" (read: "never should have been listed in the first place"), and the remaining species benefitting from other activities such as the banning of DDT.

How can the ESA be improved?
NESARC has long championed making constructive changes to the Act which will allow it to work better both for the people who have to work with the law and the species who depend upon it. NESARC is recommending that changes be made in seven broad areas of the law.

Who administers the ESA?
The Endangered Species Act is administered primarily by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but the National Marine Fisheries Service has responsibility for protecting certain marine and anadromous fish species.

What is the difference between an endangered species and a threatened species?
Under the ESA, certain species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) are listed as either "endangered" or "threatened" according to assessments of the risk of their extinction. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are brought to bear to enforce the recovery of the species and protection of its habitat. A species may be classified for protection as "endangered" when it is in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A "threatened" classification is provided to those animals and plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges.

What is a species?
A species includes any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant; any variety of plant; and any distinct population segment of any vertebrate species that interbreeds when mature. Excluded is any species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of the Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.

How does a species get listed?
The government relies largely upon petitions, surveys conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies' surveys, and other substantiated reports on field studies. Anyone may petition the Service to have a species listed or reclassified as endangered or threatened, or removed from the list. Findings are required before any proposal is published in the Federal Register.


Within 90 days of receiving a petition, the Service must make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial information that the listing may be warranted.
Within 1 year of receipt, a finding is required that the listing is either warranted or not warranted.
A finding of warranted must lead directly to an immediate (less than 30 days) proposed listing, or the Service can find that such an immediate proposal is precluded by other listing activities such that the proposal may not be made for several additional weeks, months or even years. In order to make this secondary finding of warranted but precluded the Service must also be making expeditious progress in its overall listing program (e.g., candidates of higher priority are taken first).
Any warranted but precluded finding must be re-examined on each successive anniversary of the petition's receipt until the listing is either proposed or the petition is turned down as not warranted.

What is the criteria for listing?
A species is only determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of any one or more of the following factors (economics or others not listed here are not permissible under the Act):

the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
disease or predation;
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence.

Can I see a copy of the ESA on-line?
Yes. The Fish and Wildlife Service has provided this copy of the Endangered Species Act to on-line visitors.
What if I have more questions?
Feel free to contact NESARC via e-mail or call us at 202-333-7481.

information surecatch..just information...food for thought I guess from the other side.

Valley Longhorn Elderberry Beetle

In 1995, the Yuba County Water District requested permission from the federal government to begin restoration work on 30 miles of levees along the Yuba and Feather Rivers in Northern California. The Army Corps of Engineers arrived on the scene and produced an environmental impact statement for the project. They concluded that since the time that the levees were originally built, numerous clumps of elderberry bushes had grown up in and around the levees. Specifically, 43 clumps of these bushes (made up of 1538 stems) would be disturbed by the work needed to repair the damage that time had done to the levees. After consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service, it was concluded that while elderberry bushes are not on the list of threatened or endangered species, Valley longhorn elderberry beetles are. As a result, the Service demanded that this potential insect habitat be protected even though no beetles had ever been seen in the area of the restoration work.

The Corps ruled that before any work could begin on the levees, an 80 acre mitigation site would have to be constructed. This mitigation cost $1.9 million. Various state and federal agencies decided that the mitigation site should be constructed on the river side of the Feather River levee, and that it should include a wetland. So, a large pond was dug near the levee even though the local reclamation district objected to the pond's construction, fearing that seepage from the pond could weaken the levee. The Corps insisted that there was nothing to fear.

After the pond was built, increased seepage was noted on the land side of the levee, just as the local reclamation district had predicted. In December 1996, a catastrophic levee failure that claimed three lives occurred at the lower end of the mitigation site. This levee failure flooded approximately 500 homes, 9000 acres of prime farmland, displaced 35,000 people and flooded the four largest employers in one of the poorest counties in the state.

While this catastrophe was terrible, the government's response to this tragedy has been even worse. Because of ESA restrictions, the FWS has barred local governments from making full repairs to the levees until spring. Only temporary repairs are being allowed, and then only those repairs needed to stop the immediate threat of water flowing through the damaged levies. Once the water stops flowing, all repairs must stop until the Fish and Wildlife Service completes their consultation procedures with the Corps. Even though the Service has pledged to "expedite" the process, this will still take at least three to four months.

During that time, people were afraid to return to their homes, farms and businesses. Lending institutions, including FEMA, are reluctant to make or finance needed repairs to these people's homes and businesses because they all fear that the temporary repairs will not withstand expected river flows.

The flooding also caused damage to the mitigation site, requiring $400,000 to repair. This brings to date $2.3 million for mitigation of 43 clumps of elderberries, or $55,800 per clump, or $1495 per elderberry stem.

As a result of the 1997/1997 flood, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has identified several additional levee sections needing major maintenance and has indicated that mitigation costs must be paid which will require the development of an additional 69 acres of mitigation. If the previous costs hold, this mitigation cost will equal an additional $1.725 million, for a total of $4 million to maintain about 29 miles of existing levies.

"The levees and flood channels are meant to be tools to protect people, property and wildlife habitat from the ravages of floods; not confiscated as habitat by the ESA," says Donn Wilson of the Yuba County Water District. "[The ESA] often prevents or greatly restricts and escalates the cost of needed levee and flood channel inspection, maintenance, and repair."

Congressional Testimony — April 7, 1997



Piping Plover

Three piping plover chicks held several hundred campers hostage at Shinnecock Park East near Southampton, New York.

After several months of close monitoring, the three endangered piping plovers hatched Saturday morning in the dunes above the Southampton beach. To protect them, Suffolk County parks officials closed the park’s main road at 7 p.m. Saturday, July 5 — effectively forcing most of the campers inside to stay until about noon, Sunday, July 6.

The only way out was a steep cut in the dunes, too risky for drivers of most of the 100 large camping vehicles to attempt.

While an extra day or night at the beach might not seem like a hardship, the prospect of being forced to stay indefinitely left some campers livid. But park officials were steadfast: no one could use the road until the birds left their nest and made their way safely to wherever they chose to go.

The Associated Press -- July 7, 1997



Kanab Amber Snail

Brandt Child bought 500 acres of property in Utah in 1990, planning to build a campground and golf course near its three lakes. The next year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told him he couldn't use his property because the lakes were inhabited by 200,000 federally protected thumbnail-sized Kanab ambersnails. The snails differ from other snails only because of their golden color.

A few months later, Mr. Child discovered 10 domestic geese near his ponds. After dutifully notifying federal officials, he was told that if the geese had eaten and snails, he faced a fine of $50,000 per snail! A state wildlife agent and a Highway Patrolman arrived with a shotgun intending to shoot the geese and remove their stomachs to find out if any snails had been eaten.

The only thing that saved the geese was a reporter with the Southern Utah News who showed up and told them that she would photograph the massacre. The agents then decided to back off and finally settled on forcing the geese to vomit. No dead snails were found.

The geese are now safe, but Mr. Child is still out $2.5 million because he can't use his property, and the government refuses to compensate him for his loss.

The Wall Street Journal -- December 27, 1993



Concho Water Snake

The Concho water snake was listed as endangered in 1986 after a number of environmentalists and a college professor from New Mexico convinced the federal government that only 600 to 800 of the snakes still existed.

Very little was known about the snake, and limited field work had been done on the species until 1979. Because the snake was thought to be in low numbers, the State of Texas listed the snake as endangered in 1977. In the same year, the Colorado River Municipal Water District (CRMWD) applied to the Texas Water Commission for a permit to impound water at a site near Stacy.

In an effort to better understand the actual status of the snake, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted a study in 1979 and 1980. Only 135 Concho water snakes were found at that time. Based upon this information the FWS notified the Corps of Engineers in 1983 that the construction of the reservoir would probably threaten the continued existence of the Concho water snake and assigned its own biologists to continue the surveys. In 1985, only 111 Concho water snakes were found by the FWS biologists. The FWS listed the snake as threatened in September of 1986.

In December of 1986 the FWS issued a Biological Opinion on the snake. This opinion reiterated that the snake's existence would be threatened by the reservoir and mandated ten prudent alternatives be implemented by the water district to mitigate the threat. The district reluctantly agreed to these alternatives which cost the water users of the District nearly $9 million.

One of the conditions the water district had to agree to was to conduct a 10-year, $1.5 million study on the snake.

From the survey's start to it's completion in October 1996, field teams found that not only was the snake not in any danger of extinction, they were actually flourishing in many of the manmade structures environmentalist thought would kill them. During their study, the survey team handled 13,997 INDIVIDUAL Concho water snakes. What's even more shocking is that computer estimates by Texas A&M University suggest that figure may represent only about 20 percent of the actual population. Therefore, instead of just the 800 snakes the environmentalists convinced the federal government existed, as many as 70,000 of the snakes may be living throughout West Central Texas.

"We have demonstrated...beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are thousands of the snakes," said John Grant, general manager of the CRMWD. "They are not endangered."

The cost of the $1.5 million study was passed onto the customers of the CRMWD. That financial burden may soon soar, however, because the expense was financed by district revenue bonds, and the interest on those bonds may push the actual price above $3 million. The amount of federal tax dollars spent by the Fish and Wildlife Service on this environmental boondoggle may never be known.

Associated Press -- February 15, 1997

Yes, without question.

Other animals are suffering from the growth of human civilazation, and we need to have someway to give them back something.

Besides, the human population is growing like rats, and shows no chance of slowing down.

We are the problem, and the ESA is just a minor step in the direction of solving it.

The Endangered Species Act has enabled humanity to hold on to a little more wilderness than would otherwise been able to survive.

Taken from the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife:

Endangered Species Act Success

As Americans celebrated the International Migratory Bird Day, May 11, 1996, they were heartened by the success of the Endangered Species Act: nearly 51 of the 91 U.S. birds classified as either endangered or threatened are either stable or increasing in number. The American bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and brown pelican are examples of birds that are well on their way to recovery, while the California condor and the whooping crane are encouraging examples of how species can be rescued from the brink of extinction.

As far back as 1870, habitat loss and shooting took a heavy toll on the whooping crane during the settlement of the West. Since then, the Service has conducted an ambitious recovery program. The success of the whooping crane program has served as a model to other countries seeking to protect other crane species.

The Endangered Species program received increased attention in FY 1996 as debate about reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 made headlines across the Nation. The Act, recognized as the single most comprehensive environmental legislation ever enacted by Congress, requires the conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The Service is one of two agencies (the other is the National Marine Fisheries Service) charged with implementing the Act. The Service's responsibilities include working with partners to conserve species before they need the protection of the Act, determining the species that need protection (listing), and restoring listed species to a secured existence (recovery).

The success of the Endangered Species Act extends beyond the national boundaries of the United States. Rebounding from the effects of habitat loss and commercial exploitation, Australia's population of saltwater crocodiles is being reclassified by the Service from endangered to threatened, a less restrictive designation under the Act. Protective management strategies by the Australian Government are largely responsible for the crocodile's recovery. The Service is also issuing a special rule allowing the importation into this country of skins of these crocodiles as well as Nile crocodiles, also listed as threatened, if certain requirements are met.

yeah...ain't that funny...without the ESA there may not have been many bald eagles left...wasn't the national symbol worth saving?

More positive examples of what the ESA has accomplished.

Greenback cutthroat trout: Colorado
RECLASSIFIED TO THREATENED
Listed as endangered in 1967, the greenback cutthroat trout was reclassified as threatened in 1978. Since then, the Service, National Park Service, Forest Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife have restored the species to more than 40 lakes and streams in and around the Rocky Mountain National Park and other areas in Colorado. The species could be removed from the list by the year 2000.

Columbian white-tailed deer: Oregon, Washington
POPULATION INCREASE
The Columbian white-tailed deer population in Oregon has increased from 300 to 400 individuals in 1976 to more than 7,000. Its range has expanded from 80 square kilometers in 1940 to about 1,200 square kilometers today. The Service is evaluating the status of the species for reclassification or removal from the list.

Apache trout: Arizona
POPULATION INCREASE
Captive breeding and reintroduction success have boosted the population of this fish.

Gray whale: Coasts of Alaska, Califomia, Oregon, Washington
RECOVERED
The eastern North Pacific Gray whale population has doubled since it was listed. The whale now supports a thriving whale tour business in Southern Califomia and was declared recovered and removed from the list in 1994 by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Fair or not, in my opinion, our lives are better for the fact that those animals still exist. Thank you, Endangered Species Act.

good job on the homework ladies and gentlemen...Always two sides to the coin. Nice job so far.

so "other side", exacly what regulations has the esa system put on the recovery and protection of wild salmon that you dont agree with ?

I am not agreeing with or disagreeing with any ESA listing. I am merely showing a few anecdotal examples of excessive remedies. Not taking sides here. Just food for thought. Perhaps some remedies go too far??? Perhaps not.

Is the act fair? That is a very obvious NO!

If it were fair we (taxpayers) would not be extorted millions of dollars by those who choose to abuse the act for their own selfish purposes.

Has there been some success stories? Yes, and its a good thing too. If it there had not been any success stories this legislation would have been punted off the books long ago.

I really don't understand the logic of much of the environmental community when it comes to this act. Some of the groups leverage the act responsibly (I think I would consider most salmon listings responsible use). Other enviro groups just seem to have no clue about what the end result of their well-intentioned actions will be. And the worst is that there are some of these groups who pick out species which are in low numbers just to gain status and financial benefit. What happens, and was has happened, is they create enough of an economic hardship in enough congressman's districts that the benefits of the act don't matter. And really they don?t have to piss off a lot of politicians, they just have to piss off some of the powerful ones. And oh boy have they managed to do that, but that?s another story.

I don't think that most people realize how easy the ESA could be torn down to provide a small fraction of the protection it does now if the wrong things happened. All it would take is some democrat senators to join the republicans and wild salmon might be in serious trouble.

This is why I personally support and the RFA supports ESA reform, not scraping it, but reforming it. Reform in a way that does not really impact the salmon listing, but in a way that brings some common sense to the act. If it does not get reformed now we may very well loose it later.

Endangered Species Act "Broken"?
Flood of Litigation over Critical Habitat Hinders Species Conservation.

Joint statement by the U.S. Interior Department (contact Hugh Vickery, 202-501-4633) and...
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (contact Megan Durham, 202-208-5634).

Distributed by U.S. Newswire, May 28, 2003

Faced with mounting numbers of court orders from six years of litigation, the Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will soon run out of funds to designate critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Craig Manson said today.

More important, the flood of court orders requiring critical habitat designations is undermining endangered species conservation by compromising the Service's ability to protect new species and to work with states, tribes, landowners and others to recover those already listed under the Act, Manson said.

continued here...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal the ESA!

Someone has to say it out loud: the Endangered Species Act is a disaster. In fact, it may be the stupidest law enacted since Prohibition. Like Prohibition, the ESA reflects the will of a powerful minority, who prevail for a time, until the rest of the world realizes that the objective is unrealistic, and that the medicine is more deadly than the disease.

The bottom-feeding sucker fish in Klamath Lake has brought this issue into focus more clearly than the thousands of less prominent examples in recent years. The ESA declares that the sucker fish has more right to water than 1,400 farm families who depend upon that water for sustenance.

How stupid is that?

Step back a moment - from the sucker fish, the bald eagle, the grizzly bear, and the snail darter (and from the thousands of species no one has ever heard of) - and consider the idea this powerful minority of environmental extremists has been able to force upon the world with the ESA: Non-human species must be preserved no matter what the cost to humans.

This idea is even more stupid than the idea that government should prohibit humans from drinking "intoxicating liquors." The ESA seeks to prohibit nature from ending the existence of species.

Government could not stop people from drinking "intoxicating liquors"; it has no chance of preventing species from becoming extinct. Attempts to do so give rise to massive investment in unnatural processes that are destined to ultimate failure.

Suppose for a moment that the ESA were, or could be, successful. Would a better world result? I don't think so. To preserve all the species that happen to be on earth at this particular time in history would require an end to change. Progress would have to come to a screeching halt.

Would the world be a better place today, had the environmental extremists been in power, say 300 years ago, or a thousand years ago?

Suppose for a moment that in order to preserve the non-human species, as the ESA seeks to do, progress had been halted by global decree in 1001. We would be looking at a life expectancy of, perhaps, 40 years. If we were very lucky, we might have a horse to transport us to a tavern where we might drink rot-gut whiskey to relieve the daily misery. Of course, we would still have the pollution of the transportation system to deal with, as well.

Suppose progress had been stopped before Columbus arrived on this continent, which is the destination to which modern environmentalists say we should return. We might expect to live 45 years. Our food would be a daily struggle, and our transportation system would still be polluting by the shovel-full. Ah yes, a wonderful life for non-human species, perhaps, but a situation for humans to which only environmental wackos aspire.

If the ESA could be 100 percent successful today, it would be a tragedy for all who come after us. If we stop progress today, we condemn the people of future generations to the limits of our knowledge - and we have only begun to understand how wonderful life can be.

Nature intends for life on the planet to change. And it will - with or without the ESA. Do you think the ESA would have prevented extinction of the dinosaurs? Hardly. Change is progress. Human intervention in that process cannot improve the result, it can only slow the process.

The very idea of trying to save species flies in the face of the natural process. Environmental extremists contend that species loss is "unnatural" as the result of the habitat destruction by humans. This suggests that habitat modification by humans is not natural. How ridiculous. It is perfectly natural for humans to modify their habitat in any way their intellect and energy will allow. Inappropriate modifications bring natural consequences. Both human and non-human species learn from those consequences. Those species that can adapt through the learning process survive; those that fail to adapt, don't. Nor should they.

If the condor can no longer live in its environment, nor find another suitable environment - so be it. Such a thought sends shivers down the spine of PETA people, and others who hold non-human life to be of greater value than human life. They would contend that the "web of life" depends upon all species, and the loss of any species weakens the web that supports human life.

This argument has emotional sway, but fails the test of historic reality. This argument means that our life today would be better if dinosaurs still roamed the earth. How silly. The "web of life" lost a major chunk of its being when the dinosaurs departed the planet. I say good riddance; I'd hate to have to compete with those guys for food and shelter.

The planet will survive if the condor doesn't. The planet may no longer need whales, grizzly bears, or red-legged frogs. Believe it or not, the planet would survive even if the Klamath Lake sucker fish bit the dust. But the farmers, whose lives depend upon the water that accumulates in Klamath Lake, may not survive, if government continues its foolish effort to stop progress and preserve every species that some environmental extremist says is endangered.

Philosophically, the ESA is a flop. But the ESA is not really about saving species, this is only the sales pitch used to stir the emotions of humans who are suckers for a cuddly puppy dog, a kitty cat, a panda bear, or an injured anything. Environmental extremists have exploited the natural human compassion for animals, in order to use the law to torture humans whose behavior or lifestyle is different from what the environmentalists think it should be.

Similar to the teetotalers who used the law to torture humans whose behavior included taking a drink back in the roaring '20s, environmental extremists use the law to force other humans to behave as the environmentalists think they should.

Logging is a sin to environmental extremists; use the ESA to end logging. Mining is a sin to environmental extremists; use the ESA to end mining. Farming in the Klamath Basin is a sin to environmental extremists; use the ESA to end the farming. An ESA industry has arisen, which specializes in twisting the law to impose behavior modification on people who hold a different view.

It is time to send the ESA, and the industry it has spawned, into extinction.

It took 13 years to repeal the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). We have suffered under the ESA for nearly 30 years, but only in the last decade has it become the weapon of choice for environmental extremists. If the American people, in their collective wisdom, can overturn the extreme values of a powerful minority of teetotalers, the American people can overturn the values of a powerful minority of environmental extremists.

Our children and grandchildren will applaud us if we do, and curse us if we do not. The world will be a better place when we stop letting the extremists impose their views on the rest of us. It's time to tell your elected representatives to repeal the ESA, the modern prohibition to progress.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The above article was plagiarized from:
WorldNetDaily.com © 2001

The author Henry Lamb is
the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and
chairman of chairman of Sovereignty International.

On the brighter side...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

California Spotted Owl Doesn't Require ESA Protection,
Wildlife Service Concludes

Contacts
Patricia Foulk (916) 414-6566 - Questions and Answers

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that the California spotted owl, a native bird found in forests of the Sierra Nevada, the central coast range, and major mountain ranges of southern California, doesn't warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) at this time.

The Service's action comes in response to a petition filed in April 2000 by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Nevada Protection Campaign, and a subsequent Federal court order to finish the determination by February 10, 2003. Completing a 12-month review as required by the Endangered Species Act, Service biologists concluded, based on the best scientific and commercial information available, that the overall magnitude of current threats to the California spotted owl does not rise to a level requiring Federal protection.

The California spotted owl still occurs throughout all or most of its historical range. Survey data indicates there are approximately 2,200 sites or territories in the Sierra Nevada and southern California where spotted owls have been recently observed. Investigators have been studying the population dynamics of this owl for more than a decade with mixed results. While some study areas show recent declines, the Service found no clear statistical evidence to show that the California spotted owl is declining throughout its range. Its conclusion was based on the review of several study methods used to identify changes in the population.

" We have based our decision in part because we believe current land management direction on Federal lands (the Sierra Nevada Framework) and long-range timber harvest strategies on commercial timberlands have projected increases in habitats important to spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging," said Steve Thompson, manager of the Service's California-Nevada Operations Office. "However, we are keenly aware of several new planning efforts underway by the U.S. Forest Service. Because the outcome of these efforts could substantially affect California spotted owls, we will monitor the development of management direction, offer scientific assistance, and review the effects at a later date, if necessary.

"We recognize there are difficult tradeoffs between short-term effects of fuels treatment on habitat and the long-term reduction of risks to this species as a result of catastrophic fire."

Because of the February 10, 2003 mandated deadline, the wildlife agency was unable to consider in its determination the Forest Service's current management review of the Framework and the proposed Administrative Study on the Lassen and Plumas national forests.

Thompson said his agency is working closely with the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies and stakeholders on a variety of conservation strategies for a suite of wildlife species in the Sierra Nevada, including the California spotted owl, the Yosemite toad and the mountain yellow-legged frog.

Spotted owls are medium-sized brown owls mottled with white spots on the head, neck, back and underparts, and white and light brown bars on the wings and tail. Heads are round, without ear tufts, and pale brown facial disks are surrounded by a dark brown ring of feathers. Light-colored "eyebrows" and "whiskers" form a distinctive X between the eyes, which are brown, unlike those of most other owls whose eyes are typically yellow.

The California spotted owl is one of three subspecies of spotted owls. The other subspecies - the northern and Mexican spotted owls - have already been listed by the Service as threatened. The feathers of the California spotted owl are a lighter brown than those of the northern spotted owl, but darker than those of the Mexican spotted owl. Its spots are smaller than those of the Mexican subspecies, but larger than the northern subspecies' spots. California spotted owls eat small mammals, birds and insects. Spotted owls have been known to live as long as 17 years.

The California spotted owl occurs in conifer and conifer/hardwood forests of California and is found primarily on the west side of the Sierra Nevada from Shasta County south to the Tehachapi Pass. It also occurs in the central Coast Ranges as far north as Monterey County, and in all major mountains of southern California, including the San Bernardino, San Gabriel, Tehachapi, north and south Santa Lucia, Santa Ana, Liebre/Sawmill, San Diego, San Jacinto, and Los Padres ranges.

The California spotted owl is recognized as a sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service and a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game.

A complete description of the Service's finding on the California spotted owl will be published in an upcoming Federal Register. More information on the California spotted owl12-month finding, including a photo, a Q&A and link to the Federal Register notice (when available), can be found on the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office's Web page, at http://sacramento.fws.gov

"Philosophically, the ESA is a flop. But the ESA is not really about saving species, this is only the sales pitch used to stir the emotions of humans who are suckers for a cuddly puppy dog, a kitty cat, a panda bear, or an injured anything. Environmental extremists have exploited the natural human compassion for animals, in order to use the law to torture humans whose behavior or lifestyle is different from what the environmentalists think it should be."

Put Washington Trout in this category.

CWUgirl,
Great example (Apache Trout:Arizona)
Of how hatcheries can save a species!!
Captive breeding and reintroduction sound like a hatchery to me. And come to think about it I think the same thing was used for the condor.

I know! Just think, now that Washington Trout has won their lawsuit, the hatcheries will act more responsibly, abide by the rules, so that maybe we can have the same success here in the future! Good point.

We nominate you to deflect the next inbound meteor.......so we won't have to go through such a debacle again.

Dan - What are they predicting now?

Was it a 1:900,000 chance that we will get hit in the year 2014?

If I'm around I'll volunteer. Did you realize that those odds are thousands and thousands of times better than the odds of winning any of the government sponsored lotteries?

I noticed that. My luck........I win the BIG drawing tonight, and then get whacked on the noggin by a meteor on my way to pick up the check.

1 in 900,000 doesn't sound like good odds.....but on a universal scale, I'd say it's a little closer than I want them passing by.

CWUgirl,
Boy someone gave you some bad info. WT didnt win there lawsuit it was an out of court settlement. WT did as they always do took the tax payers money and dropped the suit. They had been trying to stop the release of smolts from the hatcheries. That did not happen.

Yes, I know they settled out of court.....they proved that the WDFW was in the wrong in what they were doing and increased the monitoring so that they'll have to follow the rules. The cash settlement covered their lawyers, they didn't make money off of their suit. If the state was in the wrong, of course they should pay the lawyers!

CW...Boy you would make a good side-kick for Ramon! Like Buffalo Bob and Howdy Doody...He could whisper in your ear and pull your strings and you could tell everyone about how WT is saving the world from all those bad hatcheries.

The WDFW lawsuit settlement is but one in a string of similar acts by WT. Lots of environmental extremists use the courts to extort legal fees and force their views on the majority.

I think your analogy is a little before my time, but offensive all the same. Shame on you for resorting to petty name calling. If you had read my post on the WT thread, you'd see I'm not a member nor do I support WT, so please get your facts straight before making such assessments of my character.

Maybe not the majority of fishermen, but I believe a sizable amount of people in the US/Canada value wild animals, including salmon, and would like them to continue to exist. I don't understand the attitude that fishing is more important than the fish themselves. Perhaps I just see more value to them than the fight they have when hooked or their taste when cooked. I value them in those ways as well, but it is absolutely essential in my mind that wild stocks continue to exist. If we loose them, I think we'll lose a little of ourselves.

sorry you took offense CW....just a little joke gone bad...anyway I think that we all want species to survive but in a sensible manner that recognizes that human beings are the supreme species.

Grandpa, I have a lot of thoughts about ESA and how it is used but it's late so it will have to wait. I must comment on the supreme species comment. In my mind supremacy is a stretch. Top of the food chain, I could buy though. In my mind, there is only one Supreme and it ain't Diana Ross.

Grandpa: There you go again, assuming things not proven. Human beings are the supreme species you say. Got any evidence of that? I remember Mark Twain saying, "I care not what race a man may be. Being human being is condemnation enough." And even if we should assume that humans are the supreme species shouldn't that make us recognize the obligation to protect others?

Eddie: Who says we are the top of the food chain? Ever had athletes foot?

There I go trolling again ....Just because I place my needs and survival over those of my beloved dog does not mean that I don't watch out for her welfare every day. Some certainly don't feel that way and as long as they don't burn my SUV I'm fine with that.

The only problem with the ESA is that it's the very last line of defense before extinction.

By the time it can be invoked the species is already in dire threat.

If you don't like the ESA, then it's your moral duty to support actions to prevent species from being pushed to the brink.

Unless of course you're God, and thereby know the ultimate plan and which species should be here or not.

In the words of the immortal Bill Watterson:

The aliens came
From a far distant world
In a large yellow ship
That blinked as it twirled.
It rounded the moon
And entered our sky
We knew they had come
But we didn't know why

Bright the next morning
With noisy commotion,
The ship moved
Out over the ocean.
It lowered a tube
And drained the whole sea
For transport back home
To their galaxy.

The tube then sucked up
The clouds and the air,
Causing no small amount
Of earthling despair.
With nothing to breathe
We started to die
"help us! Please stop!"
Was the public outcry

A hatch opened up
And the aliens said,
"We're sorry to learn
That soon you'll be dead,
But though you may find
This slightly macabre,
We prefer your extinction
To the loss of our job."

I've always considered a listing under ESA as a message that we really screwed up. Once we've gone down the path to the point a critter won't survive without intervention, there has to be some regulatory mechinism to create change. Without it, people would continue on their merry way and nothing would change. I know it's not popular with a lot of folks, but ESA is a way of putting critters first and us second.

With salmon for example: if we continued to put people first, it would just be a matter of time before salmon were gone. I know there are those that will argue that we can have both, but I don't believe it for a minute. As long as the human population continues to grow unchecked, we'll continue to convert fish habitat to people habitat. We obviously can continue to pump out hatchery fish, but wild fish just can't survive if they don't have a place to live.

This whole "supreme species", "top of the food chain" argument really grates on me.

It's one thing for a species to prey on other animals, deplete their numbers to where they're too tough to find, then adapt by hunting other prey, or by dieing off to numbers that the existing prey will support.

It's another thing entirely to destroy your prey species, or even non-prey species (this is the real difference between us and other animals) with secondary means like dumping sewage, pesticides, and clear-cut debris into their habitat.

Other species leave non-prey species pretty much alone, and intact. We don't. Just because we have the capability to affect pretty much every species around us doesn't mean it's right to do so.

No, I'm not suggesting that spending $Ms to protect a fly, or bankrupting 1400 farming families to protect a sucker is smart management, but decimating species out of indifference is NOT an indication of supremacy in my book.

Face it, as a species coexisting with other species, humans are arrogant buttheads.

skywalker

Humans have re-engineered the natural food chain by over protecting some species and under protecting others. The imbalance we create in some cases causes more harm than good and distorts the natural order of things.

I just realized I'd never commented on the original question...no, as it's being enforced, it seems pretty inadequate.

The problem is, WHO gets to make the judgement calls on what gets protected, and what is a reasonable level of protection? It can't be a farmer dependant on irrigation, and it can't be a sportsman, it can't be a commercial fisherman, it can't be the BPA, and it can't be a logger. Who DOESN'T represent a conflict of interest? Who DOESN'T have his own agenda? It's a tough call.

Extreme environmentalists have hijacked the law and are using the courts to make a mockery of the original intent of the ESA .

And on that note, my apologies for leaving said environmental extremists off of the list of those with their own agenda. They certainly fall near the top.

hawaii contains about half of all the ESA listed species and if it wasn't for the ESA they'd be long gone...not that they won't be anyways ...and everytime i see an i'iwi or monk seal or humpback or koa tree i'm glad to have it...