Introduction
Today, our planet is losing species faster than at any
other time in all of human history. Congress and federal
officials continue to debate the reform and reauthorization
of the federal ESA. In the meantime, state endangered species
acts can help mitigate the loss of species in our nation
by seeking to assure the survival of the plants and animals
unique to each state. A strong state endangered species
act can serve as a complement to the federal act, supplementing
protection to those species already listed and providing
real protection to species not listed under the federal
act.
Species are part of a state or region’s natural heritage,
and are often key sources of economic and/or recreational
benefits. While declining numbers of a particular species
may not warrant federal protection, or may be held up in
the federal listing process, effective state ESAs can ensure
protection of species deemed important to the economic and
ecological viability of a state.
Weak state endangered species acts can have detrimental
effects on species important to local heritage, local economies,
and ecosystem health. State ESAs have been largely unsuccessful
in mitigating the loss of biodiversity associated with extinction
and, increasingly, state legislatures have been successful
in passing legislation that weakens already ineffective
state acts.
In 2003, the Oregon legislature considered a bill that
would have allowed delisting of a state protected species
if the state Fish and Wildlife Commission were to determine
that the species lacks “cultural, scientific, or commercial
significance” to the people of Oregon. That bill also would
have allowed delisting of a species if its population is
secure outside the state, regardless of whether the state
was part of the species’ historic range. A 2004 bill
under consideration by the Washington legislature would
prohibit the state from listing species that are not already
listed in the federal ESA.
A number of bills in California and Washington seek to
put property rights and protections ahead of species protection
by making it easier to obtain an incidental take permit
or by requiring increased consideration of property rights
and economic impacts. Other bills considered in a variety
of states would enable the legislature – and not a scientifically
or biologically knowledgeable body – to make listing decisions.
Such action would cause listing decisions to be even more
vulnerable to political pressures.
Rather than spending state time and money considering legislation
that would weaken species protection efforts, most states
need to strengthen their protection efforts so that state
acts do more than document the loss of species through the
listing process. In addition to listing, basic elements
should include prohibitions on take, recovery plans, critical
habitat designation, consultation requirements, strong penalties,
protection for plants, a citizen suit provision, and landowner
incentives. Please read SERC’s “Protecting
Endangered Species” Policy Issues Package for
more information on how to make your state ESA more effective.
In the meantime, let’s work to ensure that legislation that
seeks to weaken our state ESAs is publicly debated and defeated.
Introduced / Enacted Legislation
California
Introduced 2/21/03, SB
737 would require that social and economic impacts be
considered before adding a species to, or deleting a species
from, the state endangered or threatened species lists.
The bill seeks to establish that social and economic impact
criteria is just as important as the biological information
currently utilized in determining whether or not a species
should be listed.
Status: The bill died in Committee in Feb. 2004.
SB
643, introduced 2/21/03, would enact the Agricultural
Land Protection Act, which seeks to provide economic protection
to landowners who own agricultural property adjacent to
habitat and conservation lands. The bill would require the
owner of lands used for habitat and conservation to bear
the costs of any negative economic impacts on adjacent property.
Status: The bill died in Committee in Feb. 2004.
SB
216, introduced 2/13/03, repeals the authority of the
state’s Fish and Game Commission to identify additional
species for a recovery program. The bill also requires the
commission “to find that each recovery strategy would
recover a formerly commercially valuable species to a level
of abundance that would permit commercial use of the species
before approving the recovery strategy.” In addition,
the bill authorizes the Department of Fish and Game to develop
and implement a recovery strategy for coho salmon, and requires
the department to seek private and federal funds for implementing
coho salmon recovery, along with prohibiting any additional
state funds to be used for such recovery.
Status: Signed by the Governor on October 11, 2003 (Statutes
of 2003, Chapter 854).
Oregon
HB
3981 (2001) would create an Economic and Social Impact
Report Team for each species that the state Fish and Wildlife
Commission considers for endangered or threatened listing.
It would require the team to provide extensive and costly
reports on the economic and social impacts of a listing
and the commission to consider the report before it could
grant a listing. In addition, the bill would allow energy
facility siting councils to disregard the effects of proposed
new energy facilities on endangered species. The bill would
cause listing decisions to be more responsive to business
and economic interests and less to the biological status
of a species.
Status: Passed both the House and Senate but was vetoed
by the Governor in August 2001.
According to the existing federal Migratory Bird Conservation
Act, the federal government needs the state’s permission
to purchase land for the purpose of establishing migratory
bird or waterfowl refuges in a state. HB
3808 (2001) would withdraw the state’s permission
for any future purchases and, thereby, limit Oregon’s
ability to provide adequate habitat for waterfowl.
Status: Passed both the House and the Senate but was vetoed
by the Governor in August 2001.
HB
3809 (2001) would put a moratorium on broadly accepted
scientific standards, which call for maintaining separation
between wild and hatchery salmon during spawning to maintain
viability of wild populations, until 2003, while a panel
of scientists reported back to the legislature. This moratorium
would threaten wild salmon for two years and put millions
of dollars of federal research funds at risk.
Status: Passed both the House and Senate but was vetoed
by the Governor in August 2001.
HB
3363 (2001) would classify wolf hybrids as predatory
animals, making it legal to kill unlimited numbers of them
by any “ effective means” including, but not
limited to, poisons, bullets, and traps. Because wolf hybrids
are essentially indistinguishable from wolves, the bill
would put wild wolves at risk of being killed when they
venture into Oregon, most likely from Idaho where they are
being reintroduced.
Status: Passed both the House and Senate but was vetoed
by the Governor in August 2001.
HB
2458 (2003) would allow delisting of a species currently
listed as an endangered or threatened species if it is:
(a) removed from the federal list; (b) found to lack “cultural,
scientific, or commercial significance” to the people of
Oregon; (c) secure outside of Oregon, or; (d) unlikely to
be recovered by actions able to be performed by the state.
Status: Died in committee upon adjournment in August 2003.
HB
2468 (2003) is similar to the above bill in that it
would allow delisting for many of the same political reasons
specified above. However, HB 2468 also would prohibit the
state ESA from listing any species that is already listed
under the federal ESA. The bill would make it easier for
individuals to obtain incidental take permits and would
remove language in the state ESA requiring state agencies
to “protect” listed species on public state lands. The proposed
changes would require agencies to “work towards” species’
recovery, but would not require them to adopt land management
measures sufficient to actually achieve species’ recovery.
Status: Died in committee upon adjournment in August 2003.
Washington
HB
2368, introduced 1/12/04, would prohibit the state from
listing any species as threatened or endangered, which is
not already listed under the federal ESA. The bill would
restrict the ability of the state to protect species of
particular importance to the state.
Status: Went nowhere after its introduction, and was in
committee upon the legislature’s adjournment in March 2004. |
