This editorial neglects to point out that every member of the "Congressional
Study Group" is a Republican tied to big agriculture or forest products.
Their report is utterly predictable with the findings completely determined long
before any "study" was held. Wildlife will suffer for it, and so will
Of course the ESA did not lose sight of its mission. USFWS has however, and for
quite some time. A person only has to go down the list: ESA, MBTA, WBCA, etc. to
see that for every law passed by Congress and implemented by the USFWS, great
effort is made by officials within the Service to manipulate each so as to use
the resulting regulations as weapons against citizens. Conservation is no longer
a goal. Restricting citizen activity is. The Natural Resources Committee is very
much aware of this. They are informed of the corruption in the Service
destroying businesses that would otherwise contribute to conservation. They also
know of massive litigation efforts wasting funds originally designated for
conservation but redirected to cover Service legal expenses. And is their
response to all this to hold corrupt and abusive Service officials accountable?
Sadly no. They conduct more meetings!
Good Article, there is always easier ways to accomplish a goal, rather that
being combative with property owners, find ways to give incentives to be a good
steward of the land and wildlife. Suing good law abiding land owners is not the
answer, it becomes power grab by not so well intentioned bureaucrats.
To "Irony Guy" who complains that, "...every member of the
'Congressional Study Group' is a Republican tied to big agriculture or
forest products", I can't help but observe that the only thing you
comment on is of a political nature and completely ignore the atrocious
performance statistics.Are you not at all concerned by the abysmal
performance regarding the original purpose of the "Endangered Species
Act"?More than anything else, your narrow and warped focus
simply confirms the general thrust of the article, that the ESA, and it appears
you, have lost sight of the mission.
And yet the author neglects to mention that the world is loosing species at an
increasing rate. So if anything we need more protection not less. The grouse population increased for 1 year? That's the argument they
don't need any more protection? More pseudo science from