The war on wildlife diven by special interests politics undermines the basic goals and objectives within the Endangered Species Act. In the following letter 968 scientists ask for best available science to be the guide. Read on: May 20, 2016 Implement the Endangered Species Act Using the Best Available Science To: Secretary Sally Jewell and Secretary Penny Prtizker We, the under-signed scientists, recommend the U.S. government place species conservation policy on firmer scientific footing by following the procedure described below for using the best available science. A recent survey finds that substantial numbers of scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration believe that political influence at their agency is too high.i Further, recent species listing and delisting decisions appear misaligned with scientific understanding.ii,iii,iv,v,vi For example, in its nationwide delisting decision for gray wolves in 2013, the FWS internal review failed the best science test when reviewed by an independent peer-review panel.vii Just last year, a FWS decision not to list the wolverine ran counter to the opinions of agency and external scientists.viii We ask that the Departments of the Interior and Commerce make determinations under the Endangered Species Act only after they make public the independent recommendations from the scientific community, based on the best available science. The best available science comes from independent scientists with relevant expertise who are able to evaluate and synthesize the available science, and adhere to standards of peer-review and full conflict-of-interest disclosure. We ask that agency scientific recommendations be developed with external review by independent scientific experts. There are several mechanisms by which this can happen; however, of greatest importance is that an independent, external, and transparent science-based process is applied consistently to both listing and delisting decisions. While other factors can enter into implementation of the Endangered Species Act, listing and delisting decisions are required by law to be based on the best available science. Sincerely, The undersigned [968 constituents] Click HERE to view all 968 constituents Adrian Treves, Ph.D. Ecology Madison, WI 43705-4450 Camilla Fox, M.A. Environmental Science Larkspur, CA 94977 Robert L. Crabtree, Ph.D. Ecology Bozeman, MT 59718 David Parsons, M.S. Ecology Albuquerque, NM 87107-2919 ~~~ Featured image by John E Marriott Photography Share this: Share on X (Opens in new window) X Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp Like this:Like Loading… Discover more from The Watershed Ledger: Currents of the Red Cedar Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email. Type your email… Subscribe Post navigation Born Free USA Fights to Keep the Great Lakes Wolf Listed FWS issued permits to use endangered tigers and elephants in circuses and for sport hunting
Love this post, so nice to see someone talking about realistic proposals that people can stand behind and support. Loading... Reply
Wonderful!! Thank you, Rachel. Andrea On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin wrote: > Rachel Tilseth posted: “The war on wildlife diven by special interests > politics undermines the basic goals and objectives within the Endangered > Species Act. In the following letter 968 scientists ask for best available > science to be the guide. Read on: May 20,” > Loading... Reply
[…] Concerned Scientists. 2016. Implement the Endangered Species Act Using the Best Available Science. Letter to Secretary Sally Jewell and Secretary Penny Prizker. May 20, 2016. Signed by 968 scientists. https://wolvesofdouglascountywisconsin.com/2016/05/21/968-concerned-scientists-send-letter-implement…. […] Loading... Reply