It’s time to end the gnatcatcher follies
Do environmentalists really care about endangered species? Or do they like the fact that there are endangered species because they are a means to an end — a tool to block growth?
The case of the California gnatcatcher points to the more cynical conclusion. In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruled that the tiny bird was endangered. That had the effect of barring development of nearly 200,000 acres in Southern California — in particular, coastal areas in San Diego and Orange counties.
But now, for the second time in four years, DNA researchers led by Robert Zink, curator of birds at the University of Minnesota Museum of Natural History, have established that while the birds may have a slightly different appearance, there is no genetic difference between the California gnatcatcher and other gnatcatchers, which are not remotely endangered.
But have these findings led the federal government to stop classifying the California gnatcatcher as endangered? Not yet.
Instead, bureaucrats have stuck with the status quo at the urging of environmental groups, which make the bizarre argument that Zink has some sort of ax to grind against the California gnatcatcher.
This isn’t an argument that should sway regulators. If the California gnatcatcher isn’t an endangered species, it shouldn’t be treated like one. Period.