There’s more money in suing to keep animals on the Endangered Species List than there is in removing them, a panel of witnesses told Congress on Wednesday afternoon.
In a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee interior subcommittee hearing Wednesday, multiple witnesses told lawmakers they believe there are many species protected by the Endangered Species Act that don’t need it. The reason is simple: Money.
“A primary incentive to litigation that’s a barrier to delisting is money,” said Lowell Baier, a lawyer and environmental historian. “Money, money, money, it’s that simple. It’s the reimbursement of legal fees.”
The Endangered Species Act has been under the congressional spotlight this week. The House Natural Resources Committee examined the act on Tuesday and the subcommittee plans to hear more testimony Thursday morning after Wednesday’s hearing.
Republicans complain that the Endangered Species Act is not working effectively to get animals off the list. In their view, it has become another way to block off federal land for ranching and energy production and harms economic activity.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., said only 63 species have ever been delisted from the Endangered Species Act, which is “not a great track record.”
She said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service often bends to environmentalists who are happy to file lawsuits every time a species is expected to be removed from the list.
“The service eventually settles in court to set priorities behind closed doors with serial litigants and the process repeats,” Lummis said. “This process does little more than benefit lawyers.”
Joel Bousman, a rancher and county commissioner in Wyoming, compared the Endangered Species Act to “Hotel California” from The Eagles song: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
He said the act has created a system that encourages environmental groups to sue to block any potential delisting. Those groups know the government will settle with them and keep a particular species that could be taken off the list under federal protection.
That leads to many species that no longer require federal protections to stay on the list, Bousman said.
“At the county level, we do not deny the value of protecting truly endangered species,” he said. “But, it is troubling to us that the goal of the Endangered Species Act appears to be permanent and perpetual listings rather than species recovery.”
However, Democrats on the committee said delisting isn’t necessarily the best way to judge the Endangered Species Act’s impact on threatened animals.
Rep. Brenda Edwards, D-Mich. said 99 percent of the species that have been put under federal protections since the Endangered Species Act still survive. She said criticisms from Republicans often miss the mark on what the point of the act is.
“It is an unfortunate point of view and ignores the reality that the reason species are listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act is the inability or unwillingness of state wildlife agencies to protect them from extinction,” she said.
Robert Glicksman, an environmental law professor at George Washington University, said more than 250 species in the United States would have gone extinct if not for the law. Many other species have seen their populations rise due to protections.
He echoed Lawrence’s belief that Republican criticisms of the Endangered Species Act are short-sighted. He said if lawmakers want to see more effective use of the law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should receive more funding.
“Congress has long funded the Endangered Species Act at levels that are inadequate to allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fulfill its duties,” he said.
