ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, February 25, 1996 TAG: 9602280030
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PAUL L. ANGERMEIER
RECENT squabbling over the federal budget has diverted public attention from Congress' primary responsibility - making laws. Or more precisely, making good laws.
Legislative progress on many important issues has stalled amid the rhetorical clashes of swashbuckling budgeteers. A prime example is reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, which has languished since 1993.
Not only has Congress failed to reauthorize this critical environrnental law. Through moratoriums and budget restrictions, Congress has crippled the law's ability to prevent extinctions.
We depend on myriad species, many inconspicuous, for all aspects of our lives. Over 40 percent of all prescriptions dispensed are for drugs derived from other species. The natural beauty of wild species is therapeutic for our psyches. Our life-support systems (air, water and soil) could not be maintained without other species. Our society often worships at the altar of technology, but technology will never replace the goods and services provided by a diverse biota.
We know far too little to determine which species are expendable. Until a few years ago, the Pacific yew was just another shrub in Pacific Northwest forests. Now it is the natural source of taxol, a powerful treatment for ovarian cancer. Most species may never provide wonder drugs, but our ignorance should dictate conservation and not indifferent elimination.
Conserving species is not just prudent, it's a moral obligation. We should be skeptical of ideologies that trivialize extermination of other life forms. There's something morally deficient about nonchalantly destroying species that we can neither understand nor re-create. This ethic is embraced by many mainstream religious faiths. The Evangelical Environmental Network, representing more than 1,000 churches, recently hailed the Endangered Species Act as a modern Noah's ark, and is urging strong protection for endangered species.
Current extinction rates are much greater than at any time since humans arrived on Earth. The vast majority of species declines are human-induced, especially through direct destruction of natural habitat. Aquatic animals are among the hardest hit. The American Fisheries Society, the largest professional society of fisheries scientists, currently recognizes more than 700 fish, mussel and crayfish species as imperiled in North Arnerica. About 100 of these occur (or used to) in Virginia. The Endangered Species Act is one of the few regulatory tools available to slow the indisputable decline in our nation's biotic diversity.
Some congressional leaders have met the challenge of the act's reauthorization with disdain for conservation. The only reauthorization bills introduced in this Congress have come from Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash.; Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska; and Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, R-Idaho - all of whom openlv cultivate close ties to the timber and oil industries. Virginia Sen. John Warner co-sponsored the Gorton bill. All three bills would effectively repeal the Endangered Species Act by severely restricting species' access to protection and gutting the regulatory framework that facililitates recovery.
An alarming aspect of these bills is their rejection of science. Just as we consult physicians regarding personal health, we should consult biologists regarding biotic resources. Yet, the bills ignore recommendations by the National Research Council, a nonprofit body of scientists asked by Congress to review the act. For example, the bills de-emphasize habitat protection, the first tenet of species conservation, and even exclude habitat destruction as a source of harm to endangered species.
Others in Congress, shunning the difficult and contentious task of writing laws, have surreptitiously debilitated the act. In 1995, Sen. Kay Hutchison, R-Texas, successfully attached to a defense-appropriations bill an amendment to prohibit species from being declared endangered. Subsequently, numerous amendments to a variety of bills have disabled the Endangered Species Act by denying funds to identify or recover imperiIed species. Apparently, the logic is that if we ignore the symptoms, the disease will go away. Procrastination serves short-term economic interests well: Profits soar while populations of rare species dwindle into oblivion.
Assaults on the Endangered Species Act are driven by the greed of a few powerful economic interests, not by public outcry. Polls consistently show that most Americans do not favor weakening the act or other enviromnental laws.
Opponents' claims that the act strangles economic growth have no factual basis. Between 1987 and 1992, fewer than 1 percent of more than 18,000 projects reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were stopped because of impacts on endangered species. The track record of the Endangered Species Act is largely cooperation, not conflict.
A major limitation on the act's effectiveness always has been severe underfunding. In 1991, the money appropriated by Congress for the Fish and Wildlife Service to run its entire endangered-species program was less than the amount spent by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on advertising to promote beef consumption.
A second limitation is the lack of a cohesive policy to protect ecosystems before species become endangered. The Endangered Species Act engages only after a species is near extinction. Reliance on the act alone to conserve species is like a health-care plan that only covers terminal illness. Congress could enhance the effectiveness of, and reduce the need for, the Endangered Species Act by strengthening environmemal policy.
The act has been abused long enough. Now is a good time to urge Congress to reinstate funding for it until it is reauthorized and to reauthorize a strong, well-funded act. Federal budgets typically are written in early spring.
Making good environmental laws is a tough job that demands insight and integrity. We should remind Congress that ignoring science or pandering to economic interests is unacceptable. The extinction clock is running on much of our natural heritage. Reinstating the Endangered Species Act can buy more time. We might also remind Congress that without responsible action on environmental issues, they may be endangered come November.
Paul L. Angermeier is an assistant professor of fisheries and wildlife science at Virginia Tech.
LENGTH: Long : 109 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: BARBARA CUMMINGS/Los Angeles Timesby CNB