LETTERS: CONSERVATIONIST TAKES ISSUE WITH LETTER

To the editor:

I read with interest William Judd's letter of June 20 to the Southeast Missourian. I sincerely admire his commitment to this issue and his willingness to speak out on something he feels strongly about. But the facts, at least here in Missouri, do not support his concerns about endangered species protection.

First, there is no law or regulation in the United States that creates in inviolate refuge within a 2-mile radius around an active eagle nest. The department would never support this approach and the USFWS has never asked us to implement such a thing. To suggest that the whole of government should be shut down is truly outrageous and will never happen. No bald eagle nest protection has ever displaced "thousands of home owners" anywhere in the United States. Although temporary refuges are sometimes established around eagles nests in Missouri they are mostly for information/education purposes and they don't intrude unfairly upon Missouri landowners. Our experience in Missouri has been that folks are darned excited to have one on their property. By the way, I am proud to report that we had 12 active eagle nests in Missouri last year and it looks like this year will be even better.

Regarding the bat cave owners in Southwest Missouri, the facts are not that "the power line company can't use the land," but rather a powerline that was planned to cross their property was planned and eventually established 500 feet away to avoid their house and cave. That powerline is distributing electricity today, but only in a slightly different location at no additional cost to anyone.

His theory on declining property values associated with endangered bat caves is not supported by the facts. The department tries to track the availability of endangered bat caves because we want to buy a few to protect and manage this wildlife resource. I can think of three bat caves that have come up for sale in the last two years.

I cannot defend or refute the ESA horror stories from other states, but I feel certain of our record in Missouri. Mr. Judd's efforts may successfully create undue fear among some Missourians, but the folks who already work with the Department on endangered species protection know differently.

The Department would never support the tactics described in the materials he circulates. If Mr. Judd is opposed to ending "private ownership of property, stopping economic activities which sustain the region such as logging, farming and mining, and an end to recreational activities such as hunting and fishing", then he has a lot of company here in the department, cause we believe in those things too.

I think we part company when he declares that protection and management of fish and wildlife and economic development are mutually exclusive. We believe in the economic health and well being of Missourians and believe that managing healthy fish and wildlife populations is integral to our quality of life.

One thing is certain, you won't "lose your land or go to jail because an endangered creature is on your property." There are too many examples to the contrary.

Dennis E. Figg

Endangered species coordinator

Missouri Department of Conservation

Jefferson City