Markey: Under Proposed Endangered Species Act Changes, Bald Eagle Would Have Gone Extinct In Most Of The Nation

Lawmaker Sends Letter to Fish and Wildlife Service Criticizing Proposed Changes to ESA

WASHINGTON D.C. (January 27, 2012) -Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, is challenging proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Markey's letter sent late yesterday to Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe argues that the proposed new policy sets too high a threshold for species listing.

"The language put forth in the Interior Department's draft policy would trade shields for loopholes in the fight to save birds, fish and other life forms that are at risk of being wiped off the face of the planet," said Rep. Markey. "Had this policy been in place in 1976, the bald eagle would not have been protected throughout our country, and the great symbol of our nation's freedom would have been confined to Alaska. Because Congress rejected the idea of protecting species in only a portion of their ranges, we can now see bald eagles living on the Potomac River, within sight of the Capitol."

To read Rep. Markey's letter to Director Ashe, please click HERE.

As illustrated in Rep. Markey's letter, the new Fish and Wildlife Service proposed policy defines the "significant portion of the range" phrase in the ESA. Under the proposed policy, a "portion of the range of any given species would be defined as ‘significant' if its contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction."

Under this proposal, if a species was thriving in one area but struggling elsewhere, that species could not be protected under the ESA because the species as a whole is not in danger of extinction.

Markey's letter points out that in 1976, the bald eagle was listed because of population declines in the lower 48 states, despite the fact that its population was thriving in Alaska. Had a similar policy been in place in 1976, the bald eagle would not have been protected, and Americans would have to travel to Alaska if they wanted to see one. Fortunately, in 1976, the FWS took an expansive view, in line with Congressional intent, of the purpose of the ESA and protected the bald eagle throughout the nation, ultimately leading to its recovery throughout all of its historic range.

The letter also takes issue with the draft proposal for failing to take into account the historic range of species, stating that the agencies will only consider the "general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time FWS or NMFS...makes any particular status determination." This decision to ignore historic range is inconsistent with the stated goals and purpose of the ESA, and would make it more likely for species to go extinct or disappear from large parts of the United States.

Perhaps most revealing is the fact that an identical standard for listing was proposed and rejected by the Department of Interior during the Bush administration.