Laserfiche WebLink
L I S T <br />of Problems <br />0 PROBLEMS WITH ESA <br />Petitions for lising <br />- No state access <br />- No sharinu of information <br />2. No opportunity for balancing interests <br />- inadequate public interest considerations <br />- but don't want to "gut" the ESA <br />3. Inadequate funding <br />4. Inconsistence in agaencies <br />- lack of coordination <br />5. Should we repeal, amend. litigate or negotiate the ESA? <br />6. ESA can be a valuable hammer, providing impetus to state fish and wildlife agencies, but <br />needs to be used reasonably. <br />7. ESA listing roves leverage to feds to carry out federal mandates —good or bad? <br />8. Is there a national interest in species preservation? Does it justiA the ESA hammer? <br />Does the national interest in preserving species from extinction differ from the ESA definition <br />of species (.e.g, distinct populations ?) <br />9. More incentives are needed to promote preferable proactive approaches. <br />10. Who should bear the burden of recovery? <br />11. Should recovery costs be proportional to the cause(s) of listing? <br />12. There is no opportunity for eariv intervention in the biology of assessments. <br />13. There is no clear, rational, equitable compensation for damages. <br />14. There is a need for a better distinction between threatened/endangeredispecial concern <br />species. There should be Treater flexibility in administering_ threatened and special concern <br />species. [e.g., make it possible to take protective action for special concern species] <br />15. Lacking adequate definition of "harm." <br />16. Need to clarify what is an adequate conservation program. <br />17. ESA is used as a ruse to achieve other objectives. <br />