As federal authorities consider whether to put the lesser prairie chicken on the endangered species list and rain down regulations on landowners to ensure its survival, it’s time to take a moment and consider whether heavy-handed rules and court orders are the best means to achieve wildlife preservation.
The region dodged a bullet in June when the Interior Department agreed to voluntary conservation instead of regulations to protect the dunes sagebrush lizard, whose numbers are threatened by agriculture and oil and gas activities in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. But the positive outcome of that particular conflict between human activity and indigenous wildlife seems to be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to such matters.
The voluntary agreement was panned by environmentalists who preferred the lizard be declared endangered and all human activity threatening its survival be curtailed by edict.
And, as we have seen in matters ranging from forcing greenhouse gas regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency to putting a halt to an Austin water project that allegedly threatens a species of salamander, the courts remain an avenue through which advocates can impose their will beyond the intent of Congress or the clear words of a law.
It’s fitting the House Committee on Natural Resources last month held an oversight hearing to examine how some groups exploit laws such as the Endangered Species Act, particularly through the courts.
The hearing, titled “Taxpayer-Funded Litigation: Benefitting Lawyers and Harming Species, Jobs and Schools,” included written testimony from Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples.
Staples urged the panel to modify the ESA to curtail regulations and limit opportunities for its misuse.
“Congress needs to step in to end this game of ‘endangered chicken’ once and for all,” Staples said. “A sad irony of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act is it promotes regulation over incentives, often to the detriment of the species it proposes to protect. Rather than supporting proven conservation efforts, the ESA has been used to suffocate opportunities that promote species propagation through non-governmental, non-regulatory methods.”
Just as the dunes sagebrush lizard agreement is a mutually beneficial solution to that species’ protection, it’s important a balance be struck between the needs of humans and the wildlife with which we must coexist. Putting wildlife’s interests ahead of human needs may seem altruistic and honorable, but doing so amounts to taking without compensation the assets and livelihood of those on whom regulations weigh most heavy.
All too often those advocating extreme conservation measures bear little or none of the costs or consequences they so enthusiastically would impose upon landowners and society as a whole. Voluntary measures, however, achieve better results because landowners are partners in the process rather than victims of it.
Certainly, mankind should endeavor to protect all of God’s creatures and allow them to thrive in their natural habitat— but the last we checked, humans are on that list as well.