Green groups bare teeth at ESA moratorium

Margot Higgins / ENN 29nov00

Conservation groups are roaring mad over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to put a moratorium on all endangered species listings until September 2001.

The groups have long claimed that politics, not science, determines whether or not a species is protected under the Endangered Species Act, and the FWS' decision smacks of the same motivation, they say.

"The moratorium is indicative that we have reached a crisis situation," said Heather Weiner of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund. "This decision is completely irresponsible and will do nothing but harm the very species and habitat (the FWS) is supposed to be protecting."

The moratorium will delay protection for more than 300 species that are proposed for listing or are already considered candidates for listing. At the front of the line for ESA protection are the Chiracahua leopard frog, the Aleutian Otter, the Pacific fisher and the island fox. Without ESA designation, the species are vulnerable to continued habitat destruction, poaching and trafficking of their parts and products.

The FWS blames litigation over critical habitat designation launched by environmentalists for eating away at its listing budget. Having missed the deadline for designating critical habitat for about 90 percent of the 1,200 species listed under the Endangered Species Act, the FWS faces court-ordered designations for nearly 300 species.

"Complying with all of those court orders and set agreements is going to consume all of the Service's listing budget until 2001," said FWS spokesman Chris Tollefson. "Any funding we may have available will be allocated for emergency listings only. We will make sure we take care of any species in immediate danger."

But conservation groups claim the financial problem stems from the fact that FWS requests for congressional funding are too low and have dropped in recent years.

This year's request of $7.2 million for fiscal year 2001 is less than last year's $7.5 million request and almost $3 million less than the 1992 request under the Bush administration.

Moreover, the groups point out, the Clinton administration specifically asked Congress to limit its endangered species funding.

According to a 1990 report by the Interior Department's Inspector General, $144 million was needed to list all species thought to be endangered at the time. Since then, the endangered species roster has grown and the FWS has not asked Congress for even a tenth of the necessary funds to address the backlog.

"Whenever the agency has asked for more funding, it has gone up," notes Keiran Suckling, director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "The FWS is more concerned with creating controversy than protecting endangered species. You cannot name a single controversial species that has been listed without a petition or a lawsuit."

The northern goshawk, for example, lives in every old-growth forest in the western United States. "Listing the goshawk as an endangered species would threaten the entire western timber industry," Suckling said. "This could cause a level of political crisis that would dwarf the spotted owl, and the FWS has twice denied listing petitions."

While Suckling and Weiner allow that the Clinton administration has done good things for clean air, clean water and national monument designation, they say it has been at the expense of wildlife.

"The public has a different perception of clean air and clean water because it impacts human health," Weiner said. "With endangered species, it seems more esoteric and it is harder to transform public opinion."

Nevertheless, Weiner notes, a recent poll conducted by the University of Arizona found that 84 percent of Americans believe ESA should remain the same or be strengthened.