< Return to Articles

Senator explains why law needs reform

By Colorado Senator Wayne Allard
Mar. 14, 2006, The Coloradan

Recently the Coloradoan published an opinion piece, "Preserving our biological diversity," regarding S.2110, the Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act, bipartisan legislation I have cosponsored to improve the Endangered Species Act, or ESA. I felt it was important to respond and offer a few clarifications to that piece.

After reflecting on the last three decades of the ESA, I and many others have come to the conclusion that improvements to the act need to be made.

There is no doubt that modifying the ESA will be contentious. It is all too easy to throw around facts illustrating the act's successes or failures without addressing the actual problem. The article you printed states that less than 1 percent of listed species have gone extinct. Opponents of the current act can just as easily point to the fact that less than 1 percent of listed species have been recovered and removed from the list. The interesting thing is that both sides are right. It is time to move beyond the rhetoric and engage in an honest debate on the ESA, where it has worked, where it hasn't worked and what we can do about it.

I would like to address the authors' concerns about S.2110, and demonstrate that the bipartisan legislation I have cosponsored is a good thing for both species and people.

The authors state that under my proposed legislation, species and habitat protections would be rendered ineffective. That is incorrect. Simply put, S.2110 does not weaken our abilities or commitment to species conservation, but expands it. This legislation provides additional tools, not only for protection, but also for the recovery of species. Right now, we identify species that are on the brink of extinction and list them for protection, but fail to take the next logical and perhaps more important step: finding ways to recover them. As a veterinarian, I find this disregard for the recovery of endangered species appalling.

The authors are also concerned about how this legislation would affect taxpayers. As one of the most committed fiscal conservatives in Congress, my voting record is proof that I do not take spending taxpayers' money lightly.

This bill would not unduly burden taxpayers. The conservation incentives in the legislation come primarily in the form of tax incentives.

These incentives are in no way a government handout. There is an intrinsic value to the work that landowners would be doing in exchange for these incentives.

The authors make an excellent argument for these incentives when they expound on the impact and importance of the Endangered Species Act to society. I couldn't agree with them more, which is why I feel it is unfair to take individuals' private property and ask them to implement conservation measures for the public good without justly compensating them. Compensation to landowners is vital when you consider that fully one-third of critical habitat nationwide falls on private land. This figure is sure to grow, along with the ever-expanding wild/urban interface.

The authors of "Preserving our Biological Diversity" and I may disagree about whether the ESA has been successful, but I would like to point out that we do agree on a few things. We agree that the preservation of species is important, and that the Endangered Species Act can be improved.

It is precisely for these reasons that I am sponsoring S.2110. I ask anyone, including the authors, to take an in-depth look at S.2110 and compare it to any other ESA legislation. (They) will see that our bill was thoughtfully developed in a collaborative bipartisan manner.

This is legislation that will make the Endangered Species Act work better, not weaken it.

I encourage readers to go to my Web page, http://allard.senate.gov, and read the legislation.