The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is our main line of defense against global extinctions that scientists predict may otherwise be up to 10,000 times the natural rate. Over 500 species have become extinct in North America since the beginning of our country's history and scientists estimate that we are losing up to 100 species a day around the world. The number of threatened species is thought to be around 9,000.
Given the current crisis, it is difficult to imagine how national environmental groups could justify their continued existence if the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the crown jewel of our nation's environmental laws, is weakened or destroyed. In 1994, when these groups should have moved aggressively to strengthen the ESA, fear and bureaucratic inertia caused them to delay. In 1995, when preservation of the Act in a hostile Congress requires active delay, these same factors are pushing some groups to embrace changes that would grievously weaken the Act.
Just as in 1994, when I directed the national Endangered Species Coalition, there is still no leadership among national groups for preserving or strengthening the ESA. There is still no courage. There is still no national environmental group willing to take real responsibility for preserving the ESA, along with the credit for each small victory, which are few and far between of late. America's flagship environmental groups are still top-heavy bureaucracies in which self- perpetuation has replaced environmental protection as the primary goal. The organizations are still out of touch with the public and grassroots activists and engaged in destructive competition for media coverage and funding.
What has changed since 1994 is the entire US Congress. The Republican-dominated 104th Congress would like nothing better than to destroy the Endangered Species Act, but they should not do so with the compliance of the national environmental groups. While there is little chance of strengthening the ESA in this Congress, there is still every chance of keeping it alive.
Fear on the part of the national environmental groups is created, at least in part, by vociferous opponents of endangered species protection. The faction that the national groups fear most is the property rights movement. The "wise use movement" and their industry cohorts are loud and mean; national environmental groups need to be louder and meaner. This shouldn't be very difficult given the level of support for environmental issues. An ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 79 percent of respondents thought that "the federal government should have the right to prevent the owners of private land from developing the land if that development would involve harming or polluting the environment."
In an ABC News/Washington Post poll, a whopping 70 percent said that the government has not gone far enough to protect the environment. That's not 70 percent for maintaining the status quo, that's 70 percent for strengthening existing regulations. Relating specifically to the ESA, 75 percent in the ABC/Post poll say that the existing law has either struck the right balance or not gone far enough.
If the right-wing could fight the environmental movement, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress to a standstill in 1994 when Republicans were in the minority and had minimal public support, national environmental groups could surely do the same with such a whopping majority of public opinion in 1995.
National environmental groups should have pro-actively pushed for reauthorization of a strengthened ESA when we had a Democratic Congress and President, but instead they worked hard at doing nothing. If they were willing to wait when they could have been victorious, then they should wait now as opposed to supporting legislation which would weaken the ESA.
Instead, several national groups took the path of least resistance and supported legislation which would have weakened the existing ESA. There were recently two bills under consideration by the House Resources Committee. The Pombo-Young bill, HR 2275 was described by Eric Glitzenstein, a leading environmental attorney, as an "unmitigated disaster" and is supported by the most rabid anti-environmentalists in Congress. The other bill, HR 2374, sponsored by Representative Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) was described by Glitzenstein as a "mitigated disaster." While the Endangered Species Coalition, the 263 member coalition working to protect the ESA, did not take a position on the bills, several of the national groups, including The Wilderness Society, The National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Defense Fund supported the Gilchrest bill.
Glitzenstein said, "The Gilchrest bill must be seen for what it is-a short-sighted, poorly drafted... bill which will inevitably severely impede, rather than facilitate, efforts at the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species." Glitzenstein notes that several provisions of the bill would weaken implementation of the ESA so that even under a friendly administration there would be "myriad new opportunities for those hostile to the Act to delay, complicate and prevent its effective administration." His opinion is shared by several other esteemed environmental attorneys. Despite the support of these national organizations, the Gilchrest bill was defeated in committee, but Pombo- Young, the "unmitigated disaster," passed by a vote of 27-17 and is headed ultimately for a floor vote.
Although support for the Gilchrest bill may have had some strategic value, it sets a bad precedent for a bottom line standard for reauthorization. Support of the Gilchrest bill is yet another example of national environmental groups yielding to a false reality created by opponents of endangered species protection without attempting to influence it in any way. With the level of public support and potential for grassroots pressure, national environmental groups should stand for nothing less than a stronger ESA. The big environmental groups need to stop talking about "political reality" and start creating a new reality that reflects the overwhelming public support for preserving the environment!
The only answer to weakening the Act in any way should be a strong, unyielding NO! There is absolutely no excuse for anything less. Once again, grassroots leaders and activists are going to have to hold Congress and the national groups accountable for the fate of a law so strongly supported by the American people. Politically speaking, the worst of times can be the best of times. In other words, although it may seem counter- intuitive, it is usually easier to mobilize grassroots support in the face of a hostile Congress like the one with which we are faced today.
Obviously, if the Pombo-Young bill or its Senate counterpart can be defeated outright, it should be, but if the headcount in the House and Senate is solidly against a decent reauthorization bill, the only effective strategy is a defensive end-game. The national groups need to work with grassroots groups to apply unprecedented pressure on Clinton to veto anything less than a strengthened ESA. I'm talking about a nationwide grassroots strategy of protest marches, constituent meetings, letters and phone calls by the hundreds of thousands. Clinton needs this type of pressure to sustain his resolve, and he cannot ignore it in an election year if it comes from a strong, unified voice. National groups will also need to apply similar pressure to ensure that the right-wing doesn't have enough votes to override a veto.
The strategy is simple, but it would require a decision at the highest level that the national groups should come together, put aside their selfish interests and really work together without compromise to preserve the Endangered Species Act. Coalitions are a great idea in theory. But, the Endangered Species Coalition can only work in fact if there is a decision by the chief executive officers of the major national environmental organizations to come to the table offering money, lists of supporters, technical and staff support to the Endangered Species Coalition.
The kind of world our children inherit may well depend upon the ability of national environmental organizations to recognize their problems and radically alter their behavior. They should realize that protecting the environment is not for sissies and fight the way environmentalists used to fight-in the old days. Remember those days, when environmentalists used to win against all odds? With the odds strongly favoring environmental protection, it's not too late to get tough and to live up to the legend... yet.
Karyn Strickler is the former Director of the National Endangered Species Coalition