LETTERS: ENDANGERED SPECIES FACTS

To the editor:

Alan Journet has written a trilogy of letters accusing the Republicans of being for dirty water and air and a host of other allegations. He has yet to give any facts or examples of how they would do this. He seems to be operating under the premise that if you repeat an incorrect accusation enough times, it somehow becomes factual. Another possibility is that if people knew the reasoning behind those allegations they would disagree with his conclusions.

I want to explain the changes the Republicans have proposed for the Endangered Species Act. The way the ESA has been applied, it should be renamed the Endangered Sub-Sub-Species Act. The ESA has three pertinent parts that determine how it is applied: the harm clause, the harass clause and the economic statement.

The harm clause is "An act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering."

The Republican proposal does not change the harm clause. They do no nor have they ever wanted to destroy or harm endangered species.

The harass clause is "An intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering."

The Republican proposal changes the harass clause because of its vague nature which leads to many different interpretations. Currently, any expert, whether real or self-proclaimed, can testify to just about anything and make the harass charge stick.

What is the Republican proposal? They want to have a peer-reviewed, science-based decision-making process which would determine whether a species is endangered or threatened and what constitutes harassment. This proposal seems to send the lift-wing, extremist environmentalists into a rage. This certainly brings up the question: If these species are truly threatened, harassed or endangered, why do you fear scientific review? As a professor in the science department at the university, Mr. Journet would, I think, embrace this proposal with open arms.

The other important aspect of the ESA is the part that says economic considerations will not be taken into account. This is probably one of the most under-reported topics of the decade. Under the ESA, no compensation for taking the use of your land is required. Example: Let's say you have a large dead tree in the middle of a 160-acre field. You have been raising crops in the field for years. This spring, however, a bald eagle decides to nest in the tree. The experts decide that farming that field would harass the eagle, so you are ordered not to farm that field or go anywhere near it. If that's what it takes to protect the eagle, OK, but guess what? The bank still expects you to pay your mortgage, and the county tax collector still requires you to pay your taxes. However, you can't use your land, so making those payments is pretty difficult. The under-reported story is that the vast majority of privately owned land taken to protect endangered species has gone uncompensated.

What is the Republican proposal? To make the ESA adhere to the U.S. Constitution. (What a radical thought.) The Republicans propose that if 30 percent of the use of your land is taken by the ESA, you must be compensated. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution promises just compensation. This proposal sends the extremist environmentalists into orbit. I have always wondered why. They continually tell us that saving species is important to the future of all mankind. I couldn't agree more, but if such a taking of private property is needed to save the species, why is it wrong to compensate the landowners? The simple answer is that left-wing environmentalists know that the government cannot remotely afford to pay for all the land that has been seized under the ESA and other environmental regulations. They operate under the premise that it's a good idea as long as someone else pays for it.

No one wants to breathe dirty air, drink dirty water or kill endangered species. To accuse the Republicans and Jo Ann Emerson of this is asinine.

What are these radical proposals of which Mr. Journet accuses the Republicans and Jo Ann Emerson? They require that environmental laws and regulations be scientifically reviewed, have an economic-impact assessment and adhere to the compensation part of the U.S. Constitution. Those are things I want my congressman to believe in and stand up for, and I know Jo Ann Emerson will.

MIKE KASTEN

Jackson