Kintigh is wrong about Endangered Species Act


  1. Nelson Spear says:


    I think you mistake my position as one that supports the lizard’s protection – I do not. I heard one presentation on the issue and was not going to make a lot of assumptrions based upon one presentation.

    My post was intended to invite those who support the lizard to prove to the rest of us that the government is really doing their job (by conducting their own analysis) instead of solely relying on the environmentalists’ “work.” I am very interested if that accusation can be rebutted by the environmentalists.

    BTW, I have not worked for the government for more than six years.

  2. qofdisks says:

    Join now before it is too late for our children.

  3. OakTruncheon says:

    The economic catastrophe is already in progress. It has nothing to do with the EPA, or with any endangered lizard species. It results from ongoing efforts to protect another endangered species entirely. A kind of parasite which has been artificially bred to be too big to fail, and kept alive by extraordinary means for far too long.

  4. MJM says:

    While in grad school, I spent a fair amount of time working for the US Forest Service attempting to establish “economic value” for proposed wilderness areas. Things may have changed over the years, but I spent alot of time in wilderness areas asking individuals (if I could find any) how much money they would pay not to see another person….This is know as “willingness to pay” scenarios. I propose that we establish a bid process on these properties, and that individuals bid for either development or non development. If you get a higher bid for non development then take them out of production. But pay a rental fee just like you would for holding leases for grazing or other natural resource development. If you do develop establish reasonable remediatio plans. Doesn’t this sound fair? I mean both environmentalists and resource developers have all kinds of $. This would allow them to bid for the prime sites for development or non development.

  5. durablebrad says:

    Nelson Spear,

    It is curious that you would seek to put the weight of evidence wholly upon the shoulders of a third party rather than the government itself, but as a self-proclaimed “government bureaucrat” perhaps this particular subject is completely self-explanatory. (SEE: The Peter Principle)

  6. Nelson Spear says:

    Interesting counterpoint.

    Listing decisions are subject to peer review by independent scientists – the same process scientific journals use to scrutinize studies before publication. In a recent report to Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said Fish and Wildlife uses the best available science in decisions to list endangered species, and its use of external peer review is consistent and reliable.

    I heard a presentation about the dune sagebrush lizard about a week ago and it was stated in the presentation that the government relied upon the petitioners data in the implementation of the lizard’s protection. I cannot remember the entire presenter’s remarks, but I do recall the comment that the lizard and several other species were treated in the manner – i.e., the government simply relied upon the petitioner’s data instead of using their own data. It was also stated during the presentation that the “value” of the species to the area was not even a contributing consideration to a decision whether or not the lizard should be listed.

    I think that I know how things are supposed to work as a government bureaucrat, but it seems to me that if the presenter’s claims are accurate, then the Rep. Kintigh and Cong. Pearce have a legitimate gripe. Does the author of the article have any information regarding the claim that the government did not do any of its own research before listing the species?

  7. Dr. J says:

    My headline would be: “Lininger is wrong about Endangered Species Act”. I mean really, he is just as biased, partisan, and with a paid, aligned agenda about this issue as “…the oil and gas industry – whose financial largesse has handsomely benefited politicians”, as if the environmental lobbysist, pressure groups, and liberal, left wing trust-babies have not done anything for politicians. Why do we always have to have these polarizing, political opinions that demonize the other side all the time?

  8. Hemingway says:

    Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican presidential candidate, accurately described the G.O.P. — it is the “anti-science party.” Tthe opinions of far right extremist Pearce and now sadly Mr. Kintigh should terrify us. The anti-intellectualism of the political right extends far beyond the issue of endangered species.

  9. artiofab says:

    In contrast, Mr. Kintigh organized a farce “science review” of lizard protection by people who lack expertise on the lizard and who had already voiced opposition to the lizard’s listing.

    This, right here, is why I took everything that group published with multiple grains of salt. If Rep. Pearce and State Rep. Kintigh had wanted to produce an actual independent and objective scientific review of the lizard’s listing, they could have assembled a team of people who had voiced opinions on both sides of the issue, both pro and con. Both sides could have presented the best evidence and data that they had and then either have come to a consensus that everyone was happy with, or presented conclusions for both sides. The Representatives failed to do anything of this caliber, instead hand-picking a jury who, unsurprisingly, came to the verdict they themselves favoured.

    Science has a place in the politics of the 21st century, but the Representatives both failed at understanding what that place is.