Have a Comment about the New ESA Rules? Sorry, Not Interested
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 08.14.08
Sure, the Fish and Wildlife Service is interested in reading your comments about the Bush administration's latest gutting of the Endangered Species Act -- just not that interested. In what will likely come as no surprise to long time readers of this blog, the Bush White House has once again decided that, given the choice, it would rather not listen to your lily-livered, tree-hugging blatherings, thank you very much. That is, unless you're willing to deliver them by snail mail.
Unbeknownst to me and, I would imagine, the many of you who gave up on this administration's so-called "environmental" initiatives a long time ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service suddenly decided to stop accepting public comments on proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act last December. Andrew Wetzler, the director of NRDC's Endangered Species Project, noticed this earlier today when he was poring over the text of the administration's newest proposal to sabotage the ESA.
Here's the passage that caught his eye:
"ADDRESSES: Submit your comments or materials concerning this proposed rule in one of the following ways:
(1) Through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments.
(2) By U.S. mail or hand-delivery to Public Comment Processing, Attention: 1018-AT50, Division of Policy and Directives Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information)."
As he notes, it's standard practical for federal agencies to accept comments by e-mail or fax (heck, even the EPA is still doing it). The Fish and Wildlife Service's unexpected move could have something to do with the fact that, as Wetzler points out, it received over 600,000 comments last year when it was considering listing the polar bear as an endangered species. Given the White House's own, shall we say, reluctance to open its e-mails, I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of a broader push by the administration to squelch any opposition to its last-minute proposals.
But maybe I'm overreacting. A commenter remarked that, like many other federal agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of migrating its operations to a new system (http://www.regulations.gov); so while it may not be publishing the comments, it is still accepting them. Maybe so -- but in light of this administration's past track record, and its current effort to ram through major changes to the ESA with minimal input from the public, I can't help but feel a bit skeptical.
Whether you agree with my paranoid rantings or not, I don't think I'm going out on too much of a limb when I say that this would fit in perfectly with the Bush administration's pattern of dissembling and obfuscation. As Wetzler put it:
Regardless of the reason, one thing is clear to me. The combination of (1) no e-mail comments; (2) a miserly 30-day comment period; and (3) no public hearings signals loud and clear that the Fish and Wildlife Service is not interested in listening to the public—especially about controversial moves like their proposal to fundamentally change the way wildlife is protected under the Endangered Species Act—they are interested in ramming through predetermined results.
Image from greefus groinks
More ESA shenanigans
::Delaying Tactics Put U.S. Wildlife in Hot Water
::Endangered Species List is Itself Endangered
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Record Setting 195,000 Square Miles of Pacific Ocean Protected by Bush Administration
- Bush Administration’s Abysmal Environmental Record in Cool Interactive Graphic Form
- Focus on Focus Earth: Top Environmental News Stories of 2008
- George Beals Schaller
Wildlife Land Management Needs Sustainable Vision to Control Disease Outbreaks
|
National Allotments Week Celebrates Gardens
|
If the Fish and Wildlife Service is no longer taking input from the public...what could it possibly be doing then? From what I can assume of almost any organization, especially those with goals to help this planet, most initiative and action is taken from a wide range of concerns voiced by the people.
Blocking public comments seems ridiculous to me. If the only way to get through to them is by snail mail, then snail mail it is!
A message should be sent--that maybe being a little bit more interested in reading our comments may actually help them in their cause as well as ours.
If you checked the Regulations website you would notice it is well set up to take thousands of comments on numerous documents.
As a programmer let me tell you - not that I worked on this particular application - parsing email messages to ensure that the comments are going to the right person and rule is not that easy when John Q Public and his 300,000+ friends are writing in ( yes it's a horrible ballpark figure for the sake of example). Some email submissions will be excellent and include the correct rule --- others will not and then the guessing games begin.
A dedicated website that lets people search, read and respond directly to a particular rule is a great concept. I would suggest trying it out before ... in your own words "overreacting"
@TrollPatrol
I accepted your challenge and went to the linked website for Regulations.gov where I searched for the amendment in question.
I did find it and it clearly stated that no comments will be accepted via email or fax, as the author mentions.
Anyway, as a fellow programmer, I don't really think its that hard to get email comments where they need to go. I also don't think you need to be a programmer to figure out a good solution. If they included a direct link to comment on each regulation page (which would be sent to a unique email address for the reg id), then it seems to me that they would already be sorted. Yes, it really is that simple....
which goes back to the authors rant about govt obviously just trying to make it harder for people.
here's the thing about public comments. they are required to shut up and take our comments (not even to read them) but they carry NO LEGAL WEIGHT WHATSOEVER. if you review comments, protests, outcry, letters, petitions or otherwise for ANY of these processes, from the San Onofre Toll Road to the NIETC designations of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, to the current RETI massive desert kill-offs in CA, you will see they are 90% opposed, yet there is absolutely, positively ZERO influence that these "democratic" processes can assert. None. nothing. they are a whitewash, intended to make activists feel good without actually interfering or engaging in the processes which could stop these projects.
the press coverage may shame a legislator into taking action, and you can become a "stakeholder" for a future lawsuit (great!) but that is about the sum total you can achieve. the rest is just grandstanding, and "expressing ourselves," which is the ultimate diversionary tactic. i repeat - they do NOT weigh our comments and come down on the side of the majority. they do exactly what they were always going to do...
legislation and litigation are the keys - we gotta keep our eyes on them...
FYI, as an experienced litigator appearing in dozens of ESA cases, I've given these regulations a careful review. Sure, these is room for outrage over the "fox guarding the henhouse" aspect of allowing some agencies to review their own species impacts, but these regs ain't all bad. Maybe politics (including global warming) have helped to motive these particular changes, but the ESA needs some reform, because NOAA and FWS are simply buried under the pile of litigation from both sides. If you visit my August 16, 2008 post at www.esabawg.com, you'll find my five part commentary. Please, give it a read. I'll be submitting these comments to the agencies.. in print!
Keith Rizzardi
Founder, www.esablawg.com
Another case of blatant censorship from White House:
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/environmental-scientists-not-allowed-to-speak-their-truth/
This is not helping the current state of public ignorance regarding critical issue of biodiversity loss:
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/environmental-scientists-not-allowed-to-speak-their-truth/
my understanding is that under NEPA SUBSTANTIVE public comments need response from the agency. And yes, it is true, public comment process is not a vote, majority doesn't win. In this day and age it is very easy for an advocacy group to prime its membership with pre-written form letters and all the user has to do is click a button. Hence 600,000 comments on polar bears. Conservation and wildlife management is not best suited to majority rule. It should be based the best science. A million 'Save the XXXX!' helps no-one and costs us lots of time and money that could be better used in actually doing good management.
@ricachica
I don't believe that I disagreed with the original post's statement that no comments would be accepted by email or fax. My main concerns was with his seeming disregard for the replacement format of digital submission, the regulations.gov website, which is mentioned only towards the end -- and is questioned without being evaluated by Jeremy.
you seem to be suggesting an online submission page at the departmental webpge ot the rule change - and not a posted email address.I'm all for a great, justified rant -- but please note unless we base our arguments on research and reason they will continue to label and deride us as environmental lunatics, hippies, etc in an attempt to convince others that we should not be listened too. I'd rather we are listened too.
As for your proposal
If my understanding is correct then it seems your suggestion can be resolved by expanding and improving the regulations website system to allow for comments to also be made at departmental websites through regulation.gov linked plug-ins.
If I misunderstood your proposal - and you meant something such as below, with the names replaced by a regulation based email id then I would ask you to elaborate.
The above is an example of the current government utilized email electronic submission style. And yes I replaced some of the letters to protect the government employees in boxes.