<<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10660-2003Oct10?language=print er>>
U.S. May Expand Access To Endangered Species By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 11, 2003; Page A01 The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries. Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitat. This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the endangered straight-horned markhor in Pakistan; license the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina; permit the capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S. circuses and zoos; and partially resume the trade in African ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected. Conservationists think it's a bad idea. "It's a very dangerous precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is in the best interest of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group for endangered species. Killing or capturing even a few animals is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, conservationists say. Many charge that the policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal exploitation. The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that deviates radically from the course followed by Republican and Democratic administrations since President Richard M. Nixon signed the act in 1973. The law established broad protection for endangered species, most of which are not native to America, and effectively prohibited trade in them. Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said there has been a growing realization that the Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no incentive to protect dying species. Allowing American hunters, circuses and the pet industry to pay countries to take fixed numbers of animals from the wild can help protect the remaining animals, he said. U.S. officials note that such trade is already open to hunters, pet importers and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is supported by poor countries that are home to the endangered species and would benefit from the revenue. Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who are spearheading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely implement rarely used provisions in the law. "This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as written," said David P. Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the nature of the beast is such that there are critics who are going to claim some kind of ulterior motive." Animal welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach, saying that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be in charge of determining how many animals can be killed or captured. Advocates also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow poaching to flourish. "As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals, the incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts said. "The minute people find out they can have an easier time killing, shipping and profiting from wildlife, they will do so." The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal lovers, these species have emotional and symbolic value, and should never be captured or killed. The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of managing their natural resources." Indeed, many of the strongest advocates for "sustainable use" programs -- under which some animals are "harvested" to raise money to save the rest -- have been countries that are home to various endangered species. Foreign trade groups and governments have tried for years -- mostly in vain -- to convince the United States that animals are no longer in limited supply, or that capturing or killing fixed numbers would not drive a species to extinction. That could change after Oct. 17, the end of the public comment period on one proposed change. The proposal identified several species: � Morelet's crocodile, an endangered freshwater crocodile found in Mexico, Guatemala and Belize. Its skin is prized by U.S. leather importers. � The endangered Asian elephant of India and Southeast Asia. The declining population in U.S. breeding programs "has raised a significant demand among the [U.S.] zoo and circus community," the proposal said. � The Asian bonytongue, a valuable aquarium fish, found in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. � The straight-horned markhor, an endangered wild goat in Pakistan distinguished by corkscrew-shaped horns. According to the proposal, "allowing a limited number of U.S. hunters an opportunity to import trophies from this population could provide a significant increase in funds available for conservation." John R. Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of that state's Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help preserve rare animals. In 1999, Monson applied for a permit to shoot and import a straight-horned markhor. He was turned down. Monson said the money he has spent hunting trophies -- including a leopard from Namibia and a bontebok antelope from South Africa -- has funded conservation programs. Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his personal capacity. Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the 2000 election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent $5,445 printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign. Monson has made a variety of contributions himself, including $1,000 to the Bush for President campaign. Teresa Telecky, former director of the wildlife trade program at the Humane Society, blamed lobbying by Safari Club International and other special interest groups for a "sea change" in conservation policy. "The approach of this administration is it is all right to kill endangered or threatened species or capture them from the wild so long as somebody says there would be some conservation benefit," she said. Stansell said conservation goals, not lobbying, drove the proposals, which he said evolved through previous administrations. Still, the application of "sustainable use" has never been so broad. Last November, the United States reversed its long-held position and voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in their ivory stockpiles. Stansell said the sales, which have not yet begun, will support elephant conservation. But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at the World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers illegal poaching. "Money doesn't always mean conservation," she added. "To me, the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules, which is a Bush administration pattern." Smith, the administration official, said permits would be issued only after foreign countries showed they had strong conservation programs. "There is nothing else we have as a country to force other countries to conserve their wildlife, other than being paternalistic and saying 'no, no, no,' " he said. In another "sustainable use" proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced in August a precedent-setting exemption to the Wild Bird Conservation Act, which was signed into law in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. The policy would allow importation of the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina. The agency is reviewing public comment. The prized parrots sell for several hundred dollars apiece. Stansell said Argentina, which approached Fish and Wildlife with the proposal, would allow the capture of about 10 nestling parrots from five nests in every 250 acres of parrot habitat. With export taxes of $40 to $80 per bird, a 250-acre area would generate $400 to $800 per year to support conservation. Stansell conceded that cutting down forest habitat and selling timber would generate far more money for landowners, but said the Argentine government concluded that owners would prefer sustainable returns from selling the birds. Conservation biologists said Fish and Wildlife made poor estimates -- or no estimates -- about how many parrots would be left. "It's an extraordinarily bad idea," said Jamie Gilardi, director of the World Parrot Trust, a conservation group that has filed opposition to the plan in a letter signed by 88 international biologists. "The quotas are based on poor or inadequate science -- and the sustainability issue is simply not addressed at all." The Fish and Wildlife Service's parrot proposal cited scientific estimates by Enrique Bucher, a top Argentine parrot biologist, in determining how many birds could be safely captured. But in a telephone interview from the University of Cordoba in Argentina, Bucher said his research actually showed the U.S. proposal was poorly conceived and lacked scientific oversight. "It's a very romantic idea, but in practice I do not know any positive examples," he said, referring to "sustainable use" plans. "The assumption that local communities will have the organization and altruism to put the money into long-term protection of the environment where you have terrible economic forces pushing for deforestation is a little na�ve." ---- <<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21575-2003Oct13?language=print er>> In Bethesda, Hiring Policy, 'Competitive Sourcing' Clash Naval Medical Center Considers Replacing Disabled Workers By Christopher Lee Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 14, 2003; Page A21 President Bush's efforts to make government run more like a business collided this month with the reality that, in many ways, government is not a business. For the past two years, the Navy, as part of the Bush administration's initiative, has been studying whether a private contractor should take over the custodial and food services provided by 21 federal employees at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. It is just one small example of Bush's "competitive sourcing" initiative, which requires hundreds of thousands of civil servants across the government to prove they can do their work better and more cheaply than a private contractor, or risk seeing the work outsourced. But in one important way the 21 workers in the hospital scullery are different: All are mentally retarded, beneficiaries of federal policies that promote the employment of people with disabilities. To their supporters, the administration's requirement that they compete for their jobs misses the point that government employment has always been about more than the bottom line. Through various policies and laws, federal agencies for decades have gone out of their way to hire members of certain populations, from veterans to disabled people to welfare mothers and students. "There are different goals of the federal government, and one of those goals is to get different people into real jobs," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who met last month with the scullery workers at the hospital, which is in his district. "And this [policy] will undercut that goal." Bush has strongly defended "competitive sourcing," calling it one of his most important management initiatives. He says forcing government workers to compete with private contractors for their jobs promotes government efficiency and saves taxpayer dollars -- even if the jobs stay in-house. An Oct. 3 report by the Office of Management and Budget said federal agencies have identified 434,820 jobs that are ripe for such competition, of which 103,412 are being evaluated for possible contracting out. "We are confident that the savings and service benefits expected from this effort will soon follow," Clay Johnson III, OMB's deputy director for management, said that day. That provides scant comfort to employees such as Devorah Shapiro, 30, who has worked at the hospital scullery for 10 years and worries what will happen if she loses her job. "I like working here," Shapiro said the other day while taking a break from the first half of her eight-hour shift. "I work on the belt. I help push carts upstairs sometimes. I wash plates, pick silverware -- I do everything." Shapiro landed the job after interning at the hospital while a student at Rock Terrace School, a public campus in Rockville that serves 112 special-needs children in grades 6 through 12. "I live in a group home and I have to pay the rent there," said Shapiro, her dark curls tucked neatly under a hairnet. "And I have to work, or else they'll ask me to leave. I don't want to leave my friends. I don't want to leave my house. It's too nice." The work isn't easy. The employees, clad in blue uniforms and white plastic aprons, remove trash and utensils from used trays as they navigate across a water-slicked red tile floor. Many wear earplugs to block out the drone of the industrial dishwasher that cleans the dishes and trays that pass through it on a conveyer belt before the workers retrieve and stack them in neat piles. Shifts begin at 5:30 a.m. and finish as late as 7 p.m. James Eastridge, 38, another former Rock Terrace student, has worked in the kitchen for 22 years. That is long enough for him to earn several promotions and enough money to buy a house in Hagerstown, where he lives with his parents. "I started out when I was 16 years old and just kept on working; the years just flew by," he said. "I hope we get to keep the jobs. When I was in school, I was pretty wild. They got me in the job . . . and I've been doing good ever since I've been here." Randy Severt, a teacher at Rock Terrace, said more than 300 students have interned or worked at the hospital since the school formed a partnership with the institution in 1979. The Navy got reliable, long-serving employees for hard-to-fill positions. The students, who earn between $9.42 and $12.80 an hour, were given an opportunity to work, learn about money management and become more self-sufficient. Providing such opportunities is a long-standing goal of the federal government. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 banned discrimination against disabled people in federal hiring and required agencies to develop affirmative action plans to hire more people with disabilities. Most of the scullery workers joined the hospital under a federal hiring authority that allows agencies to take on people with mental retardation as provisional employees, then convert them to permanent status after two years of satisfactory service. The government employed 1,734 mentally retarded workers in 2000, about one-tenth of 1 percent of the 1.8 million-strong federal civilian workforce, according to the Office of Personnel Management. (Overall, more than 120,000 disabled people worked for the government that year, more than 7 percent of the federal workforce.) If the hospital scullery work goes to a private contractor, it will mean a big adjustment for a group of workers who, due to circumstances and disability, do not cope well with change, Severt said. "They have problems finding jobs on their own. They don't advocate well for themselves and they don't have a lot of skills," Severt said. "Some of them can speak well. Some of them have very good social skills. But they are retarded, and they need help every step of the way. They just don't adapt." Hospital officials say the quality of the work isn't at issue. "They're very loyal employees," said Cmdr. Martie Slaughter, the hospital's nutrition manager. "I've only been here for two years and they are like my family." In similar competitions across the government, the in-house bid has triumphed more than half the time, according to the OMB. Even in the cases where the private sector has won, the employees often have gone to work for the contractor. But the scullery employees are at a decided disadvantage. "If you are special needs, you have a great need for greater supervision," Slaughter said. "And we all know that supervision costs money." Jerry Leener, whose son Mike, 27, has worked at the hospital for eight years, said that even a White House focused on the bottom line should realize there is little to be gained by contracting out the work. Displaced employees would turn to government entitlement programs, including federal disability payments, Medicaid and food stamps. "If our kids lose their jobs, the federal government is still going to have to compensate them," Leener said. "Either way, it's going to be coming out of federal funds. So we haven't had a cost saving as it relates to these kids. What's more, we've displaced them from their passion. They love working here. They love being a part of this." Military officials have been sympathetic but unmoved. Slaughter said that early on in the process she asked about getting a waiver for the workers, but none was forthcoming. Over the last year, parents of some workers have written to Navy officials and members of Congress seeking help, but with no concrete results. As recently as two weeks ago, Navy officials said they were still studying the situation. Parents of the workers grew nervous as a December deadline loomed for the hospital to submit its bid to keep the scullery jobs in-house. They were told that a decision on whether a contractor would take over could come as soon as March. Then on Oct. 2, 10 days after Van Hollen's visit to the scullery and after inquiries by The Washington Post, Navy officials passed the word internally that they had been directed to temporarily stop working on the job competition. "The study has not been cancelled, but postponed until further notice," an internal e-mail said. Parents said they were given a vague explanation that the job competition had gone on longer than current law permits. A provision in the recently passed 2004 Defense Appropriations bill blocks new funding for single-function job competitions that have exceeded 24 months, and multifunction competitions that have exceeded 30 months. Navy officials at the hospital did not respond to two requests for more information about the decision. "I have a suspicion that they were starting to feel political pressure and decided to put it on hold, and that maybe this thing would blow over," said Leener, who added that he remains uncertain about whether his son's job is safe. "We took it as a big victory, believe me, but it's a temporary one." Trent Duffy, an OMB spokesman, said agencies may cancel job competitions that jeopardize protected workers, such as veterans or disabled people. "It is permissible for agencies to make that determination and cancel a competition because these protected populations, these certain people, could potentially lose their livelihoods," Duffy said. "They absolutely have that discretion under the law." Van Hollen, who wrote a letter to Bush urging him to halt the study, said he viewed the Navy's decision as little more than political expediency. He still believes competitive sourcing is "a one-size-fits-all contracting-out policy that does not take into account other important goals of the federal government," he said. "I still think it's an example of their policy run amok," Van Hollen said. "There's no doubt what happened here. You want to applaud the Navy for reversing its decision, but you can't have a member of Congress or a member of the press visit every site where you've got . . . contracting out going on with model programs." _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
