His bill robs American children of the natural heritage that is their birthright by giving special interests special access to agency decision making, and replacing the judgment of trained, scientific professionals with the whims of politicians. Under the guise of fairly compensating landowners and making them partners in conservation, his bill would in fact pay them for doing nothing, which would do little to protect endangered species and could negatively affect other conservation efforts.

Contrary to the claims of its critics, the Endangered Species Act enjoys a proven track record of success. According to data published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 99 percent of the fish, wildlife and plants protected under the act have been rescued from their previous path toward extinction. In reports submitted to Congress, the agency has also shown that the majority of plants and animals managed under the act are increasing in number, heading toward recovery or have stable populations no longer on the verge of extinction.

Yet, leading researchers have found that America’s existing system of nature reserves is too small, too disconnected and the lands outside of them managed too ineffectively to shoulder the task of arresting and reversing the loss of the nation’s natural heritage. America can rise to and overcome this challenge. However, it is too broad in scope to be effectively addressed by any one sector of society alone. To conserve fish and wildlife heading toward extinction, we must leverage the strengths of both government and the private sector. This is especially true given the fact that 90 percent of all species listed under the Endangered Species Act depend at least somewhat on private, as well as public, lands.

Proactive Partners
Because fish and wildlife are publicly owned resources, the first place we should look to conserve their habitat is on public lands. Where public lands alone are unable to do the job, we must support the stewardship efforts of private landowners. Millions of dollars in federal funds, and millions more in private contributions, have been allocated over the past 30 years to support programs like Private Stewardship Grants that help private landowners be the good stewards they wish to be. In October, the Bush administration proposed cutting this kind of assistance to private landowners by $7.5 million.

This is unacceptable. We need to fully fund and expand these efforts to include tax credits for owners engaged in proactive management of their land for the conservation of America’s natural wealth. We should not offer blank-check payments for what amounts to benign neglect. Most landowners want to be more active and engaged partners with government agencies in protecting threatened habitats. Through tax incentives, they will work willingly within national conservation policies to achieve desired goals.

The Congressional Budget Office calculated that to fully fund and implement Pombo’s bill, including the costs associated with increased government bureaucracy to weave an expanding web of red tape, could cost the taxpayer $2.7 billion over the next five years. This bill will not only be ineffective in conserving species, its implementation will not be cost-effective either. The price a landowner will be paid for the loss of land due to a habitat designation is ultimately determined by the landowner. There is nothing in the law that says this price should be determined by a third party. The potential cost of this one provision is enormous and could bankrupt the Department of the Interior.

Each of us has a role to play in protecting our natural heritage, and it is contingent upon us to encourage each other to take responsibility for the land on which we all depend. The Endangered Species Act and related programs do this, making the law a statement about what is good about the American people. The act is a law that should be strengthened, not weakened, and its influence expanded, not diminished.
 

Carl Pope is the executive director of the Sierra Club.