[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

 Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an 
article from the March 22, 1994, Birmingham News entitled ``Why 
Southern Landowners Hate Endangered Species'' be placed into the 
Record. This article, written by Mr. Jonathan Tolman of the Alexis de 
Tocqueville Institute, excellently capsulizes the unique problems 
facing the Southeast with respect to the conflict between private 
property owners and the Endangered Species Act.

            Why Southern Landowners Hate Endangered Species

                          (By Jonathan Tolman)

       If you think the spotted owl debate in the Pacific 
     Northwest has been a bruising, drawn-out political fight, 
     wait until you see what's brewing in the South.
       There isn't just one endangered animal in the forests of 
     the Southeast, there are dozens. For example, every county in 
     Alabama is considered habitat to some endangered species. 
     Some counties even have their very own endangered species 
     which are found nowhere else, like Jefferson County, home to 
     the watercress darter, an endangered minnow.


                              so difficult

       One of the main reasons saving Southern endangered species 
     will be so difficult is that the Endangered Species Act fails 
     when it comes to protecting endangered species on private 
     land. And unlike the Pacific Northwest, where the federal 
     government owns 53 percent of the land, in the Southeast the 
     feds own a mere 7 percent.
       The Endangered Species Act ignores a landowner's property 
     rights and the economic stake he holds in his property. 
     Because of this deficiency, the act often forces landowners 
     to choose between jobs (their own) and the environment.
       Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has been doing his best to 
     defuse these private property conflicts. In November, Babbit 
     signed a deal with International Paper to set aside 4,500 
     acres in Alabama for the threatened Red Hills salamander. 
     Last April, he signed a deal with Georgia Pacific to set 
     aside 50,000 acres around the Southeast for the red cockaded 
     woodpecker.
       In the case of the red cockaded woodpecker, the federal 
     government was effectively given a 50,000-acre wildlife 
     refuge for the bird. But these huge corporate donations may 
     not be enough to save the woodpecker. Georgia Pacific land 
     accounts for only about 20 percent of the woodpeckers that 
     live on private land. Where is the other 80 percent going to 
     come from? What about the Red Hills salamanders that don't 
     live on International Paper's land?
       If genuine conservation for endangered species comes at 
     all, it will have to come from small landowners. And there 
     are hundreds of thousands of them throughout the Southeast. 
     For example, there are more than 100,000 private forest 
     landowners in Louisiana alone, owning two-thirds of all 
     forest land in the state. The average landowner owns about 
     140 acres. If a red cockaded woodpecker is found on his 
     property, the landowner has a real problem.
       According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
     average territory for red cockaded woodpeckers is 200 acres. 
     Under the Endangered Species Act virtually the entire acreage 
     of the average landowner would be required as habitat for the 
     woodpecker. A landowner couldn't cut down his trees, he 
     couldn't develop his land, he couldn't sell his land, he 
     couldn't even use his land as collateral for a loan. By just 
     about any definition, his land has been taken.
       Even though the landowner's property is effectively taken, 
     the federal government rarely compensates. This means the 
     individual landowner is forced to bear the costs of providing 
     habitat for an endangered species while the public accrues 
     all of the supposed benefits. Not only is this 
     constitutionally dubious, it often has the additional effect 
     of turning private landowners against endangered species. 
     This is a pattern that has been growing more and more common 
     as landowners realize the impact of having an endangered 
     species on their property.
       In some cases landowners try to discourage endangered 
     species from taking up residence on their property. In 1990, 
     Hillwood Development, a company owned by billionaire Ross 
     Perot, did just that. Concerned that the golden-cheeked 
     warbler, an endangered songbird, would take up residence on 
     its 333 acres outside Austin, Texas, the company exploited a 
     legal loophole to change the habitat. While the bird was 
     wintering in Central America, Hillwood Development hired 
     several dozen migrant workers, equipped them with chainsaws 
     and instructed them to cut down trees. Few if any golden-
     cheeked warblers have been seen on the property since then.
       A less dramatic example is occurring in central Louisiana. 
     A private landowner owns a large estate which is home to 
     several groups of red cockaded woodpeckers. When the owner 
     found out the real obligations under the Endangered Species 
     Act, he changed his management plan. Red cockaded woodpeckers 
     prefer to nest in longleaf pine trees older than 60 years. In 
     order to prevent the woodpeckers from expanding onto the rest 
     of his property, the landowner has been converting the older 
     longleaf pine into younger loblolly pine.
       Then there is the current controversy over listing the 
     Alabama sturgeon. The entire Alabama congressional delegation 
     is opposed to listing the sturgeon. Said Sen. Richard Shelby, 
     ``The people of Alabama who have worked their entire life on 
     the Alabama and Tombigbee river systems stand to lose their 
     livelihood if this animal is listed as an endangered 
     species.'' According to Sen. Shelby, preliminary economic 
     estimates predict that the Alabama economy would lose $2 
     billion a year if the fish is listed as endangered.
       The Alabama congressional delegation is not the only state 
     delegation to take exception to an endangered species. In 
     1978, the Tellico Dam project on the Little Tennessee River 
     was halted by the presence of a threatened minnow, the snail 
     darter. The Tennessee delegation then pushed through 
     legislation which specifically exempted the Tellico Dam from 
     the Endangered Species Act. Even Vice President Al Gore, then 
     a congressman, voted for the legislation and against the 
     snail darter.
       In extreme cases people will even kill endangered species 
     to protect their property rights. In 1987, two Florida land 
     developers were indicted and convicted for killing red 
     cockaded woodpeckers. In the Pacific Northwest this attitude 
     has its own slogan: ``shoot, shovel and shut up.''


                              tough choice

       Repeatedly, the current Endangered Species Act is forcing 
     citizens to choose between their economic survival and the 
     survival of a species. As long as they are forced to make 
     this decision, endangered species will lose. Dr. Eugene 
     Lapointe, who directed the United Nations' endangered species 
     program for eight years, said it best: ``Without the local 
     populations' constant involvement, no genuine conservation 
     efforts will ever succeed.''
       If the Endangered Species Act is to be a successful 
     conservation effort it must be rewritten so local populations 
     become participants and not opponents to the survival of 
     endangered species.

                          ____________________