Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000204 <br /> <br /> <br />- ~~& ~ ~~@& <br /> <br />Problems with the current Endangered Species Act <br /> <br />1. Listings are made on scientific information available: <br />Scientific data and field research must be gathered within a one year time period prior to a <br />listing decision <br />. It provides minimal and inadequate data on historical and current nwnbers, habitat <br />locations, taxonomy, etc. <br />· It creates poor public relations with landowners & affected industries. <br />. It results in unnecessary listings and the exorbitant costs associated with decades of <br />administering the listings. <br />. The science is often tainted by subjectivity. <br /> <br />2. Costs ofthe listing, monitoring, recovery etc. are borne by private property owners -who pay <br />at least 3 times for the listing: <br />. Federal taxes to fund the USFWS administration and research <br />· County taxes to fund county HCP's and fees assessed to property owners to cover <br />County administrative costs, liabilities, and court battles <br />· Personal costs to create individual HCP's, approved environmental inspections, <br />volwninous paperwork to the agencies, business losses incurred by shutdowns, <br />reorganizations, legal expenses, etc. <br />. As a consumer, the costs of products and services increase to cover the expenses <br />incurred by businesses to comply with the Act. <br /> <br />3. Proving the negative: <br />. Landowners must prove the species does not exist on their property and incur that <br />cost of field research. Property owners are "guilty" under the ESA of harboring and <br />endangering a species unless they prove, through time consuming and costly means, <br />that the species does not exist on their land. <br /> <br />4. Little evaluation of species: <br />. Was the ESA intended to save sub-species, crossed species, & man-made crosses of <br />species? <br />· Expenditures of funds are not "pro-rated" relative to the type of species, types and <br />sizes of habitats, numbers, length and size of recovery plans, etc. Budgets are open <br />ended and extravagant regardless of data. <br /> <br />5. Economic and Human Costs Vs Species Costs: <br />. The ESA, by law, does not consider economics or hwnans. Courts have weighed <br />decisions on the wildlife side consistently. <br />. The ESA, by law, can and does take precedence over the decisions of any other entity <br />in the United States. <br />. Costs are not a consideration of the ESA. <br />