THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, December 20, 1995 TAG: 9512200007
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A18 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: By DAVID S. WILCOVE
LENGTH: Medium: 71 lines
With so much bad news about the environment these days, Virginians are justifiably proud of their success in saving endangered species.
Virginia was the site where the first peregrine falcons were reintroduced to the Atlantic Coast; there are now more than 15 pairs nesting in the state. Nesting pairs of bald eagles have increased fivefold since 1977. Many of our more obscure endangered species, such as the Peter's Mountain mallow and Virginia round-leafed birch, are steadily increasing in numbers due to protection under the Endangered Species Act.
So why is Sen. John Warner backing efforts to weaken this law?
Earlier in the year, he championed an obscure amendment to budget a bill that prohibited the Fish and Wildlife Service from adding any new plants or animals to the Endangered Species list - even though delaying protection for endangered species increases the risk of extinction and the costs of rescue. Now he is co-sponsor of a bill that would permanently cripple the Endangered Species Act under the guise of ``reforming'' it.
S.1364, the so-called Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1995, is the most serious threat to wildlife protection since James Watt.
S.1364, for example, would immediately end protection for bald eagles, peregrine falcons, grizzly bears, Florida panthers, gray wolves, and dozens of other plants and animals that are protected as endangered subspecies and populations. Under this bill, subspecies and populations could be protected only if there is absolutely no genetic exchange with other subspecies and populations. Because some of the bald eagles wintering in Virginia may have been born in Canada, or because the peregrine falcons used in the reintroduction program came from a mix of subspecies, neither eagles nor peregrines would be eligible for protection anymore. This requirement for ``genetic purity'' has absolutely no basis in science - some genetic exchange between subspecies and populations is not only natural, but often desirable from a conservation perspective.
S.1364 would also undermine the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect habitats. It would, for example, permit a landowner to clear-cut all of the forest land surrounding the nest of the bald eagle (assuming the eagles ever passed the genetic test). He could even cut down the nest tree itself, provided the eagle was not sitting in it at the time. Developers along the Eastern Shore could pave over the nesting beaches of endangered piping plovers, provided they did so during the winter when the plovers were away. These sorts of actions are allowed because S.1364 requires proof that the habitat destruction has injured or killed ``an identifiable member'' of the species in question. If any animal can flee fast enough to avoid immediate death from the bulldozers, or if it happens to be away at the time, then S.1364 condones the destruction of its habitat, even if the animal subsequently dies from exposure or starvation, or is left without a place to breed,
The bill goes even further. It would allow the Interior Secretary to unilaterally decide which endangered species to save and which to permit to go extinct. One can only imagine how an Interior Secretary like James Watt would have used such power. In fact, it would take only one anti-environmental Interior Secretary to undo the good work of all of his predecessors in protecting endangered species. And once a species is gone, it is gone forever.
A reasonable person on most issues, Senator Warner appears to be adopting an extreme anti-environmental position when it comes to protecting endangered species. In this respect, he is out of step with both the sentiments of his constituents and the history of wildlife protection in Virginia. MEMO: Mr. Wilcove is senior ecologist at the Environmental Defense Fund. He
lives in Arlington, Va.
by CNB