EDITORIALS

Editorial: Don't endanger the species act

Ventura

Cutting regulation is one of the many mantras gaining steam these days in Washington, as would be expected with a Republican president and Congress. The Endangered Species Act is among several landmark laws now in conservatives’ crosshairs, and that worries us.

While the Endangered Species Act, like most sweeping but dated federal regulatory mandates, could certainly use some tweaking, we believe gutting it would be a huge step backward for conservation as well as being out of tune with most Americans’ beliefs. We want President Trump to drain the swamp in Washington, not the one in Florida.

The 1973 act sailed through Congress and was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, partly to try to save the bald eagle. Its successes are numerous, including the rebound of several species in Ventura County, yet it has been under attack from GOP lawmakers for more than a decade.

Officials announced this week that some humpback whales will come off the federal endangered species list.

They have sponsored dozens of bills to weaken it, but most were unsuccessful, thanks to Barack Obama, other Democrats and environmentalist lawsuits. With Donald Trump at the helm now, wildlife advocates are gearing up for more battles.

Conservatives claim the Endangered Species Act hinders development, drilling, logging and other economic activity with little to show for it. “It has never been used for the rehabilitation of species. It’s been used for control of the land,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, a Utah Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee. He told The Associated Press he “would love to invalidate” the law.

We believe Bishop is wrong. The bald eagle was saved and taken off the threatened and endangered list in 2007. Locally, the San Miguel, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz foxes were removed from the list last year, as were nine of 14 humpback whale populations. The recovering sea otter population off the California coast could be next.

More than 1,600 plant and animal species are now protected, with hundreds more under consideration. Opponents say too few have recovered and been removed from the list. But that doesn’t mean the act isn’t working; it just means recovery of many species can take a long time and isn’t complete.

Republican ideas for reforming the act include arbitrarily limiting the total number of species that can be protected, and the number of lawsuits by environmentalists. Both make no sense. Climate change threatens to put even more species at risk, and they’ll need all the help they can get — including from lawyers.

We agree with critics who say the Endangered Species Act should demand sound science before large swaths of land are deemed “critical habitat,” and a more cooperative relationship between regulators and affected property owners. But we also recognize the Washington swamp is filled with oil, mining and logging money looking to weaken wildlife protections. We hope our federal government has the backbone to stand up for a law with 44 years of success.