Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOliiH <br /> <br />LIS T <br />of Problems <br /> <br />PROBLE1\'tS WITH ESA <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Pennons for lising <br />- No state access <br />- No shanng of information <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />No opponumtv for balancIng Interests <br />- inadequau: public interest considerations <br />- but don't want to "gut" the ESA <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />Inadequate funding <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />Inconsistency in agaencies <br />- lack of coordination <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />Should we repeal. amend. litigate or negotiate the ESA 0 <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 />~r' <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 populations1) <br /> <br />9. More incentives are needed to promote preferable proactive approaches. <br /> <br />10. Who should bear the burden ofrecoveryl <br /> <br />11. Should recove~' costs be proportional to the cause(s) of listing? <br /> <br />12. There is no opponunitv for early intervention in the biolo!,'Y 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 !:'feater flexihilitv in administering threatened and special concern <br />specIes. [e.g., make It possible to lake protective action for specIal concern species] <br /> <br />15. Lacking adequale definition of "harm." <br /> <br />16. Need to clarify what is an adequate conser..ation program. <br /> <br />17. ESA is used as a ruse to achieve other objectives. <br />