THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, June 25, 1995 TAG: 9506220011
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Short : 46 lines
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you: ``Catch 22: The Sequel.''
Man owns forested land.
Man wants to harvest mature trees in forest and plant new trees.
Man buys concrete curbs recommended to line logging road to protect Dismal Swamp shrew, small insectivore named to Endangered Species List in 1986.
Biology professor suggests that (1) harvesting mature trees and planting new trees will help rather than harm D.S. shrew and (2) D.S. shrew may not belong on Endangered Species List any-way.
Federal agencies concerned with environmental law await data from other federal agencies on long-term impact on habitat and short-term squashing of D.S. Shrew.
City government charges man with ``dumping'' concrete construction debris on his property.
Buyer for man's trees getting antsy.
One shrew, species unknown, found in vicinity: in mousetrap in man's garage; preserved for posterity in man's freezer.
Don't wonder why Americans are increasingly cynical about government.
Never mind for the moment the big questions, such as the scope and efficacy of the Endangered Species Act and the quality of the science behind it, or the constitutional conflict between property rights and environmental law.
Here we have a local government fulfilling its duty as it sees it to keep folks from littering the countryside and a federal government fulfilling its duty as it sees it to protect endangered species. Whose duty is it, then, at what level of government to see it as citizens see it: that the proper balance between citizen and shrew, and citizen and government, and shrew and government has not been struck? Whose duty to hold up the penalty against this man? Whose to speed up the fact-finding on this project particularly and shrew-protection generally?
Environmental groups are increasingly concerned that reflexive hostility in a Republican Congress will gut environmental law. There are bigger threats: government red tape that ridiculously binds one citizen after another, and ``green'' demands that reflexively resist unwinding it. by CNB