The story can be found at
Environmental News Service: Scientists: Endangered Species Act Rewrite Must Be Science-Based
Today every US Senator received a letter signed by 5,738 American biologists urging them to preserve the safeguards of the original Endangered Species Act, in particular its reliance on science to determine policy. This is an attempt to stop Senator Crapo's S 2110, clone of Richard Pombo's bill that has already been passed by the House.
Details below.
From the ENS article:
In a telephone press conference today, several of the signatory scientists said the Pombo bill limits the types species that can be protected and the circumstances in which they can be protected.
They warn that the Pombo bill prohibits the use of computer models in projecting the outcome of scientific management techniques.
Professor Emeritus of Biology with the University of Washington, Dr. Gordon Orians said, "Pombo says thou shalt not use models, only empirical investigation, but everyone knows the only way to project future probability is that scientists must use models."
More scientists subscribing to the theory that since the ESA isn't broken, is in fact a success, don't fix it:
"The Endangered Species Act is scientifically sound and its goals are important to human well-being. We should improve its performance, not reduce its protections," said marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who serves as Valley Professor of Marine Biology and Distinguished Professor of Zoology at Oregon State University . . . .
~~~~~
"To weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered Species Act is to doom more species to extinction," said ecologist Dr. Walter V. Reid, consulting professor, Institute for the Environment, Stanford University; who is also a former director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and past board member, Society for Conservation Biology.
~~~~~
Dr. Stuart Pimm, who holds the Doris Duke Chair of Conservation Biology at Duke University, said on the conference call that the revision of the Endangered Species Act to exclude scientific processes is part of a wider attitude in the Bush administration that disregards science in favor of politics.
From the letter itself:
One of the great strengths of the Endangered Species Act is its foundation in sound scientific principles and its reliance on the best available science. Unfortunately, recent legislative proposals would critically weaken this foundation. For species conservation to continue, it is imperative both that the scientific principles embodied in the Act are maintained, and that the Act is strengthened, fully implemented, and adequately funded.
~~~~~
The current Endangered Species Act standard of "best available science" has worked well and has been flexible enough over time to accommodate evolving scientific information and practice. Failure to keep the ESA open to the use of scientific information from the best available research and monitoring, and to rely on impartial scientific experts, will contribute to delays in species recovery and to species declines and extinctions. Critical scientific information should not only include current empirical data, but also, for example, historic habitat and population information, population surveys, habitat and population modeling, and taxonomic and genetic studies. Use of scientific knowledge should not be hampered by administrative requirements that overburden or slow the Act's implementation, or by limiting consideration of certain types of scientific information. {Habitat considerations are basically thrown out the window by the Pombo and Crapo bills. -melvin}
~~~~~
Losing species means losing the potential to solve some of humanity's most intractable problems, including hunger and disease. The Endangered Species Act is more than just a law - it is the ultimate safety net in our life support system. As Earth has changed and as science has progressed since the Endangered Species Act was authorized in 1973, the ESA has served our nation well, largely because of its flexibility and its solid foundation in science. It is crucial to maintain these fundamental principles. The challenges of effective implementation of the Act should not be interpreted to require substantive rewriting of this valuable, well-functioning piece of legislation.
The question is, will the Senate listen to science or to the baloney of Pombo, Crapo, and their mining and development interest group backers?
Text of the letter
Signers
Further details from the Union of Concerned Scientists
Action Time. This would be a very appropriate time to contact your Senator and second the opinion of our leading scientists. The moneyed interests behind this bill are making their calls this week. Let the Senate hear from the rest of us.