< Return to Articles

Endangered Species Act Under Review:
Sen. Chafee looking for Senate compromise

Leslie Rovetti
October 21, 2005, The Day

Westerly, CT - The Endangered Species Act of 1973 has been the law for over 30 years, but the debate on its effectiveness, or nuisance value, has never abated.

It is hailed by some as a saving grace to animals threatened by human encroachment, and reviled as a ridiculous, anti-business irritation by others.

The only thing people agree upon is that the bill is not perfect.

"There are lots of problems with it," said Stephen Hourahan, press secretary to Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who chairs the U.S. Senate panel that is now tackling this law.

In response to complaints from constituents, the U.S. House of Representatives decided to make some changes to the Endangered Species Act. Last month, they passed HR 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Act of 2005, sponsored by Rep. Richard W. Pombo, R-Calif., with a 229-193 vote. Ninety-five congressmen, mostly from the West and Midwest, co-sponsored the bill, which makes two fundamental changes to the act.

Pombo's bill prohibits the government from labeling certain lands as "critical habitat" for endangered species, a prohibition that would enable landowners to develop land even if an endangered species is found there. And when landowners are told they cannot develop their land because of a listed animal or plant, the bill would require them to be financially compensated with an amount set by the landowner.

No congressmen from Rhode Island or Connecticut voted for the bill. Rhode Island's Jim Langevin "voted instead for the bipartisan substitution offered by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif) and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.," according to his press secretary.

Connecticut's Rob Simmons also rejected HR 3824. In a statement issued by his press secretary, Simmons said, "As a lifelong member of the Sierra Club, I listened to the concerns of the environmentally active citizens of Connecticut, and felt strongly that this bill would not provide adequate protections to our nation's diverse wildlife. On this basis, I opposed the final bill."

The House bill "is not going to pass the Senate," Hourahan said. Chafee is working on a compromise bill that he hopes will satisfy Western landowners and still protect wildlife.

However, until that compromise is reached, the debate rages on.

Local farm bureaus have come out in favor of the new bill.

"Anything that loosens up the Endangered Species Act, we're in favor of," Al Bettencourt of the Rhode Island Farm Bureau said. "We don't think they should be telling us what to do with our land."

"We certainly support what's happened in the House," said Bonnie Burr of the Connecticut Farm Bureau. She compared the present law to eminent domain, "in the sense that the government tells you what you can and cannot do with your land."

As an example of problems caused by the law, Burr said the eastern oyster is currently under review for being listed as either threatened or endangered. She said the review was prompted by the low oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay; however, the oysters are thriving in the Long Island Sound.

If the oysters are listed, "we'll lose a million-dollar industry, literally," Burr said.

Tessa Getchis, an oyster expert with Connecticut Sea Grant at University of Connecticut-Avery Point, agreed with Burr's statements about the oyster populations. She said listing the oyster would be "a threat to aquaculture and commercial harvesters," but "my feeling, based on the comments (from scientists), is that it won't be listed."

For Renee Main of the Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut in Salem, the issue is about helping people as well as animals.

"I think they're good changes," she said of the bill. "We want to save wildlife, but we need to have other priorities as well."

As expected, environmental groups have come out in opposition to the bill. David Sutherland of the Connecticut chapter of The Nature Conservancy said the Pombo bill was "done with the intent of gutting the act." Like Langevin, he supported the Miller-Boehlert compromise, which he said provides "meaningful incentives for landowners to work with endangered species." He called the compensation system in the Pombo bill "unworkable," and said it encouraged abuse of the system.

Tom Baptist, executive director of Audubon Connecticut, said his group is "not in favor of the changes being proposed."

"We think it's a significant weakening of the protections," he said. "I think the (present act) is working. I think there's room for improvement, but not in the direction Rep. Pombo is taking it."

He also said that since the bill provides no funding for landowner compensation, it would bankrupt the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Maggie Jones of the Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center in Mystic agreed.

"I think the changes overall are bad," she said, and "would do more to weaken the Endangered Species Act than strengthen it."

The loss of the critical habitat provision bothered her because "it's recognized among the scientific community and others that habitat destruction is the main reason species are lost," she said.

She used the ivory-billed woodpecker as an example. The bird had been thought extinct, but was recently discovered in a nature preserve.

"This enormous wildlife refuge had protected the (bird's) habitat," she said.

And for those who say that the present act doesn't work, Jones said there have been "some remarkable recoveries." She cited the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, American alligator and California condor as examples.

For developer Bob Fusari Sr. of Middletown, Conn., the law evokes philosophical questions.

"We lose an enormous number of species around the world every day. Who are we to say that we can save them?" he asked.

For some local people, the Endangered Species Act is a non-issue because there are very few affected species here in New England.

"It isn't an item that's affected us directly, judging by the phone calls we get," said Roger Warren of the Rhode Island Builders Association.