Ecological Society of America Criticizes Bush Administration’s Overhaul of the 
Endangered Species Act


The Ecological Society of America today criticized the Bush administration’s 
Aug. 15 proposal to reinterpret the Endangered Species Act, which would impose 
regulatory changes eliminating the requirement for federal projects to undergo 
independent scientific review. The proposal would allow federal agencies to 
decide for themselves whether their projects would harm endangered animals and 
plants.

“The concept of independent scientific review has been in practice since the 
18th century and is crucial to ensuring that ideas and proposed work are 
scientifically sound,” said Alison Power, president of the Society and 
professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell 
University. “This overhaul of the Endangered Species Act would place the fate 
of rare species in the hands of government stakeholders who are not qualified 
to assess the environmental impacts of their activities.”

The Endangered Species Act protects more than 2000 of the United States’ rarest 
plants and animals.  Ranging from green sea turtles to Santa Cruz cypress 
trees, these species are not only national treasures, but also biological 
resources and often integral parts of their ecosystems.  

Under the current Act, which has been in effect since 1973, agencies are 
required to consult with scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 
the National Marine Fisheries Service to assess potential ecological threats of 
their proposed projects. The administration now claims that agencies possess 
the expertise to judge the potential risks of their own projects and could opt 
to forgo the consultation.

The Bush proposal would present a conflict of interest, erasing the distinction 
between scientific review and politics. But proponents argue that the agencies 
would be held accountable and would suffer strict repercussions if their work 
negatively affected endangered species or their habitats. Power says, however, 
that this logic would provide little incentive for agencies to assess their 
work as rigorously as an unbiased reviewer. 

“What if we allowed pharmaceutical companies to approve and distribute drugs 
without consulting the Food and Drug Administration?” she asks. “The result 
would spell potential disaster for humans. In this case, the vulnerable party 
is our environment.” 

Recently, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management conducted an 
internal assessment to determine the effects of wildfire prevention projects on 
endangered species. A follow-up evaluation by the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service revealed that about half these 
evaluations were lawfully and scientifically invalid.

The Society believes that independent scientific review is a critical part of 
the Endangered Species Act and that eliminating this part of the process will 
result in environmental neglect at best and species extinctions at worst.  The 
administration’s proposal would compromise our ecosystems’ capacity to provide 
essential services, such as mitigating pollution, regulating climate and 
providing natural resources.  Exposing the most vulnerable species to the 
threats that will result from the Bush proposal will endanger our ecological 
support system.  

The Ecological Society of America is the world’s largest professional 
organization of ecologists, representing 10,000 scientists in the United States 
and around the globe. Since its founding in 1915, ESA has promoted the 
responsible application of ecological principles to the solution of 
environmental problems through ESA reports, journals, research, and expert 
testimony to Congress. ESA publishes four journals and convenes an annual 
scientific conference. Visit the ESA website at http://www.esa.org.


-----------------------------
Christine Buckley, Ph.D.
Communications Officer
Ecological Society of America
1990 M St. NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC  20036

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 202 833.8773 ext. 211
fax: 202 833.8775
www.esa.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email

Reply via email to