Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lli~4(lS99 04;48 <br /> <br />719873512& <br /> <br />U S FOREST !NDUSTRIE <br /> <br />PAGE 64 <br /> <br />00D297 <br /> <br />AI! other states which commented were opposed to listing. <br /> <br />This discussion is presented to bring attention to the need to <br />revise/revamp/rewrite the Endangered Species Act. <br /> <br />The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources referred to the fact the <br /> <br />issue of listing lynx was addressed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1994. <br /> <br />They stated: <br /> <br /> <br />"//7 compaling these two vety different int€!rpretations of lynx <br /> <br /> <br />status by the Service, we nO(e chat the current proposal in longer, <br /> <br /> <br />more detailed, and mc/udes more numerous citations and <br /> <br /> <br />references. How€!ver, we also note that there is essentia.lly no new <br /> <br /> <br />information contained in the 1998 proposal Chat was not available <br /> <br /> <br />to the Service and presumably considered in 7994." <br /> <br />In 1 994 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded listing was not warranted <br />yet we are expending time and effort again. <br /> <br />Minnesota went on to comment: <br /> <br />'"The 7998 proposal contains no citations of peer-reviewed <br /> <br />pUblications on lynx biology more recent that J 994. Without <br /> <br /> <br />expla.7ation, the Service has added more citations of anecdotal or <br /> <br /> <br />speculative observarions and has reinterpreted essentially the <br /> <br /> <br />same dara, r€!<lching very different, speculative, and in many case5 <br /> <br /> <br />unsupportable conclusions. We do not agree with th€! ServIce's <br /> <br />i 998 revIsed interpretation of lynx biology and status, as applied <br /> <br /> <br />(0 the state of Minnesota. " <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />