Misinformation, spin abound in endangered species debate
Richard Pombo, the California Republican currently leading the effort to strip the Endangered Species Act of its requirement to protect "critical habitat," spins a good yarn. But checking Pombo’s facts often reveals a different story.
In 1994, in testimony before a Senate subcommittee, Pombo claimed that his family’s land near Tracy, Calif., was stripped of its value when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared it critical habitat for the endangered San Joaquin kit fox. Trouble was that the agency never designated critical habitat for the fox — on Pombo land or anywhere else (HCN, 7/25/05: Will the real Mr. Pombo please stand up?).
Asked for examples of how critical habitat has harmed business, Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Pombo’s House Resources Committee, recently replied: "The poster case when it comes to critical habitat would be the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, and the near-destruction of the timber job base in that area." That, too, turns out to be untrue.
Curious, High Country News commissioned two veteran environmental reporters, Tony Davis and Kathie Durbin, to check out the claims coming from Pombo’s committee and the offices of his industry supporters. They found that while endangered species have indeed impacted timber companies and developers, there seems to be a great deal of confusion over what part of the Endangered Species Act is actually responsible.
In at least one case, industry representatives blamed the act for restrictions that were the result of an entirely different law. Steven Webster, executive director of the Florida Marine Contractors Association, testified to Pombo’s committee in 2004 that critical habitat for the Florida manatee had prevented fishermen from building new boat docks. But in an e-mail to Davis, Webster admitted that the real culprit was the 1899 Rivers and Harbor Act. He added, "However, I feel very comfortable stating that if the 1899 Act did not exist, the (U.S. Fish and Wildlife) Service would have used ‘critical habitat’ as its regulatory justification to meddle."
Aren’t environmentalists just as guilty of hyperbole and spin? Davis checked their stories, too, and found them to be largely accurate. Critical habitat for the palila, a yellow-headed Hawaiian bird, led to an agreement that removed cattle and sheep from 10,000 acres of forests and contributed $14 million to palila conservation. In the West, critical habitat has kept off-road vehicle riders and other recreationists from destroying the desert yellowhead, an herb that lives in one small patch in Fremont County, Wyo., and the Inyo California towhee, a songbird whose numbers have dropped below 200. In Humboldt County, Nev., the rule protected the Osgood Mountains milkvetch from mining activity; the plant was later removed from the endangered species list.
Here’s a wrap-up of discrepancies we found around the region.
—Greg Hanscom, editor
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon


Is it any wonder that Pombo and his staff follow the Frank Luntz / Karl Rove playbook. Sunday Evening, Scott Pelley did a number on the Bush Administration about their politicizing of scientific reports. When I say, politicizing, I mean tht they removed the science from it but kept the form so that they could claim "scientific" scientific justification for their absurd policies. I urge all to look at the Pelley piece. He showed the actual markup by an energy lobbyist working in the White House who totally changed the meaning of the original report. This is not nuance editing, it is fraud. When the word science comes from Pombo's mouth, he must nearly choke on it.