Money in politics first hurts those with the least political power and wildlife have no direct voice in government. Wolves, elephants, birds, fisheries and other wildlife are threatened by Congress’ actions to dilute protections under the Endangered Species Act, including removing ESA status for grey wolves and red wolves in parts of the US, failing to ban use of body-gripping traps, and bill-riders that weaken wildlife conservation and protection.
The Daily Bucket is a place to note what you are seeing around you: animals, weather, meteorites, climate, soil, plants, waters. Each note is a record that we can refer to in the future as we try to understand the phenological patterns that are quietly unwinding around us. To have the Daily Bucket in your Activity Stream, visit Backyard Science’s profile page and click on Follow.
Congress is in session again and one action will be establishing the 2017 federal budget. Riders to bills and other legislation is based on lobbying of special interests whose interests are not science and conservation. The Audubon Society’s petition notes two bills in particular that weaken the ESA.
In the Senate, bills like S. 855 would virtually repeal the ESA by de-listing species after 5 years and removing protections for species that only exist in one state, while S. 736 could require the use of inferior science.
In the House, H.R. 2098 would inject burdensome and redundant economic analysis to decisions on critical habitat, as economic factors are already taken into account, and H.R. 1667 would require publicizing potentially sensitive data, putting vulnerable species at risk of poaching and collection.
Earlier this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote an article about these issues: The Budget Process Shouldn’t Be a Playground for Special Interests.
Policy riders are harmful, ideological provisions that help rig the game for special interests, and are tucked away in bills with little to no debate. Policymakers sneak inappropriate ideological riders in moving legislation because they are too controversial and divisive to pass on their own merit.
The reason they don’t want you to know about these poison pill policies is because often, these riders are special interests’ backdoor attempt to weaken science-based public protections for their own gain. And like clockwork, they continue to appear, and lawmakers continue to hope that no one will notice.
We’ve won these battles before. We have defended science as the basis for decision-making for conservation. Organizations like Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Biological Diversity have successfully sued the US Fish and Wildlife Service to act on candidate species and on designating critical habitat for some animals already listed. For example, USFWS recently designated 1.8 million acres of critical habitat be protected in California for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs, Yosemite toads and a northern population of mountain yellow-legged frogs.
Another agreement between the Center and USFWS requires the agency to speed protection decisions for 10 at-risk animals and plants and choose an additional 10 species per year for expedited protection decisions. Over the next five years, the Service must decide whether these species will receive Endangered Species Act protection by the following dates: alligator snapping turtles (2020), Barrens topminnows (2017), California spotted owls (2019), beaverpond marstonia (2017), Canoe Creek pigtoes (2020), cobblestone tiger beetles (2019), foothill yellow-legged frogs (2020), monarch butterflies (2019), Northern Rockies fishers (2017) and Virgin River spinedace (2021).
Spotlight on Green News & Views is a collection of nature and environment focused stories from the past week on Daily Kos. Spotlight publishes every Saturday and Wednesday afternoons on the front page.