Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~ <br />~;[f.~~ <br /> <br />{tI~} <br /> <br />UU .3..' -- <br /> <br />LIS T <br />of Problems <br /> <br />PROBLEMS WITH ESA <br /> <br />I. Petitions for lising <br />- No state access <br />- No sharing of information <br /> <br />") No opportunity for balancmg interests <br />- inadequate public interest considerations <br />- but don't wantto "gut" the ESA <br /> <br />3. Inadequate funding <br /> <br />4 Inconsistency in agaencies <br />- lack of coordination <br /> <br />5. Should we repeaL amend, litigate or negotiate the ESA ry <br /> <br />6. ESA can be a valuable hammer, providing impetus to state fish and wildlife agencies, but <br />needs to be used reasonably. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />ESA listing gives leverage to feds to carry out federal mandates-good or bad? <br /> <br />8. Is there a national interest in species preservation? Does it justify 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 /> <br />9. More incentives are needed to promote preferable proactive approaches. <br /> <br />10. Who should bear the burden of recoveryry <br /> <br />11. Should recovery costs be proportional to the cause(s) oflisting? <br /> <br />12. There is no opportunity for early intervention in the biology of assessments. <br /> <br />13. There is no clear, rational, equitable compensation for damages. <br /> <br />14. There is a need for a better distinction between threatened/endangered/special concern <br />species. There should be h'Teater flexibility in administering threatened and special concern <br />species. [e.g., make it possible to take protective action for special concern species] <br /> <br />IS. Lacking adequate definition of "harm." <br /> <br />16. Need to clarify what is an adequate conservation program. <br /> <br />17. ESA is used as a ruse to achieve other objectives. <br />