Bad News for Wildlife and Wild Places

The last four weeks have been hard ones for me. Three environmental policies that I believe in and fought for have been threatened by recent administrative actions.

I long for the day that people realize that creation is more than just a cog in the economic machinery – it is the context of all life, yet we treat it as just another economic input into the profit/loss statement. We need a new way of seeing the miracle of life, the uniqueness of humanity and the interdependence of the web of life – with all of its imperfections, it is still the only place in the known universe that supports life.

Yet, for most people, economic concerns trump ecological ones. “It’s the economy, stupid!”  But is it really? Doesn’t protecting the systems, interconnectedness, and fruitfulness of life trump short-term profits? Isn’t this what Jesus meant when he said you can’t serve both God and mammon (money).

Roadless no more?

A federal judge in Wyoming ruled against the Roadless Rule, an administrative decision implemented by President Clinton in his last weeks of office protecting nearly 59 million acres of the last roadless areas in the lower United States. This is an important protection to the watersheds and wildernesses future generations will be so thankful for. (And also places I used to llama pack when I was an outfitter.)

The judge ruled that the roadless policy was forced upon the American people without their input and consideration of their desires. I don't agree with his decision and logic since I participated in one of the over 187 community meetings that were held and Restoring Eden helped collect almost 10,000 (out of 2 million) signatures advocating for roadless protection at Creation and Cornerstone festivals.

Environmental groups plan to file an immediate appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

More trouble for the spotted owl

The Bush administration reported that they were removing 23% of the critical habitat lands, which are in Washington and Oregon, required by the spotted owl. This essential habitat, some of the last remaining temperate rainforest in the world, was being opened to logging even though the biologists have stated the spotted owls are declining at a rate of 4% year.

Extinction isn't stewardship

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, appointed by President Bush, announced that the Interior Department will "streamline" the Endangered Species Act by changing the law internally using a backdoor process that eliminates much of the due process given to species protection. He described the new rules as a "narrow regulatory change" that "will provide clarity and certainty to the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act."  But environmentalists and congressional Democrats blasted the proposal as a last-minute attempt by the administration to bring about dramatic changes in the law.

For more than a decade, congressional Republicans have been trying unsuccessfully to rewrite the act, which property owners and developers say imposes unreasonable economic costs. Many give credit for the act's preservation to the burgeoning eco-evangelicals who appeared on the scene in 1996 with the Evangelical Environmental Network.

But this summer, about the same time as the roadless rule decision, a Bush administration appointee within the Department of Interior stated that they were going to make key changes to the way that the Endangered Species Act is implemented, removing much of the scientific analysis. It was also going to severely shorten the comment period to 30 days. That means that to protect a species, biologists would have to survey the land, do research, gather advocates, and speak out, all within thirty days of a species being considered, or they lose the right to make further comments.

"I am deeply troubled by this proposed rule, which gives federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act," said Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, who asked for a staff briefing before the proposal was announced but did not receive one. "Eleventh-hour rulemakings rarely, if ever, lead to good government -- this is not the type of legacy this Interior Department should be leaving for future generations."

A few years ago, at the request of Congressman Rahal, I flew back and testified in front of the committee on the environment.

I know it is expensive and time-consuming to protect species. Developers and agencies are frustrated by the law. The original law created a giant caution light that made federal agencies stop and think about the impacts of their actions. What the Bush administration is telling those agencies is they don't have to think about those impacts anymore.

The new rules would also limit the impact of the administration's decision in May to list the polar bear as threatened with extinction because of shrinking sea ice. At the time of that decision, Kempthorne said he would seek changes to the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that it was inflexible, adding that it had not been significantly modified since 1986. In a statement recently, the Interior Department declared that even if a federal action such as the permitting of a power plant would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, the decision would not trigger a federal review "because it is not possible to link the emissions to impacts on specific listed species such as polar bears."

An aide to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, said she, like Rahal, had requested but not received a briefing. The panel is drafting a letter to Interior and will hold an oversight hearing, the aide said. In a statement, Boxer called the rules change "another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door" and added: "I believe it is illegal, and if this proposed regulation had been in place, it would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle, the grizzly bear, and the gray whale."

In particular, the 30 days comment period is absurd. We are willing to do something of eternal consequence - like drive a species to extinction - and rush into this with only a 30 day warning? 30 days for an eternal eviction from the household of God, seems pretty draconian. I don’t want to be the one to try to explain to the Creator how it was our best thinking to destroy the creation. Extinction isn’t stewardship. It’s as simple as that.