That's a Rappaport

Always nice to hear from a Towson alum! By far the biggest threat to biodiversity is loss of suitable habitat for species, especially species facing extinction due to other pressures. That's why the habitat protections of the Endangered Species Act are so important. In fact, that's why all our environmental laws that conserve open spaces, forests, wetlands, and other habitats are so vital. After all, it hardly matters what you do for species if you don't protect their habitat.

It's true that there are a number of ways to improve the effectiveness of the ESA to make it work better for all stakeholders, including wildlife. The process for designating habitat, for instance, is an area where even just a few changes would make a big difference for humans and wildlife species alike. And of course, a strong infusion of resources -- both funding and staff -- would help address both the growing backlog of species awaiting protection and accelerate the timeframe for many others to reach recovery. But we must be careful in this climate. As you noted, there are some who clearly would use the potential for reauthorization of the act simply as a vehicle to dismantle its protections.

Hang in there! I hear from a number of friends in the FWS who have the same challenge. It's frustrating and heartbreaking to watch what's happening inside the agency. But please remember that many of us on the outside know exactly what's going on inside. We also know that the biologists in the FWS are among the most dedicated, passionate, and capable professionals working to save wild things and special places. We know first-hand how hard you all are working to make sure science prevails over politics. Please just keep doing what you're doing; we're here to help. The pendulum always swings back.

See my answer above. But I would also add that it is essential to stay true to your values on this issue. I sure don't advocate falling on your collective swords, but your voices simply have to be heard. The public understands more and more the administration's twisting of science for political ends thanks largely to people who continue to speak from the facts. I know it's hard, but please know that the honest work being done by FWS employees, especially during these "difficult" times, is incredibly valuable to our conservation legacy.

I am "skeptically cautious" about Mr. Hall. I emphatically disagree with his "policy" decision on what genetic data can be used in trying to recover species and his interpretation of appropriate science in species recovery, and I was quite disappointed to see something like this coming from a career biologist. But for now, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. It is up to Mr. Hall to demonstrate that he is committed to upholding the mission of the FWS and to leading one of the finest teams of professionals I have had the privilege of serving with. I hope, if he's confirmed, that his allegiance to the conservation of our natural resources legacy is positively demonstrated for us all to celebrate.

This is an issue that is often raised and I would cheer louder than anyone if our country's scientific and political leaders got together to hammer out a forward-thinking, long-term policy framework for the conservation of biodiversity in this country. But it's such a daunting task. It will take significant political will and urging by an informed public to stimulate such an initiative. That said, I would happily be part of such a process; these issues are just too important to go at piecemeal.

Excellent question. I am often perplexed -- and dismayed -- at the lack of understanding most people seem to have about these issues. That said, I believe that we have a real need to continue to educate. A strong public and personal ethic to protect the environment is present in other countries; I think we can make that happen here too. If that means focusing on popular programs and policies, secure in the knowledge that the same policies benefit "less popular" creatures much farther below the public's radar screen, that's OK. My colleagues in Defenders' communications shop are always reminding me that we have to talk about biodiversity and similar issues in ways that connect with people's lives; otherwise, they are never going to become engaged. We need to do a better job helping an increasingly urbanized society to understand the connection. So goes the critters, so goes us. It is a lesson often lost on our movement.

Absolutely, yes, yes, and yes. But perhaps even more insidious is who is doing the rewriting. I can't tell you how many times we've examined a new Bush environmental policy only to find that the language mirrors language requested by industry. From forest plans to pollution controls to the protection of endangered species, lobbyists for industry special interests are having tremendous influence in this administration. I believe we should expect our environmental protection laws to be written by people who actually want to protect the environment, not by those who want the protections removed so they can irrevocably destroy it.

We too have been saddened and outraged by Alaska's policy of aerial wolf killing. It's an issue Defenders has been working on feverishly for a number of years. But right now, in Alaska, the political stars are aligned with those who support this policy. The governor, the state legislature, and the Board of Game are all proponents of aerial killing. We have significant questions about the science behind the policy and seriously question the legitimacy of the federal government ignoring what we believe is their oversight responsibility on this issue; but right now, Alaska is calling all the shots. I can tell you this: we're not giving up. This issue continues to be one of our top conservation priorities and will be until it is stopped. Stay tuned.

It's absolutely part of the problem. Many people want a place to get away from it all, which only swells the communities outside the cities, leading everyone to complain about sprawl and the loss of open spaces. It is a vicious cycle indeed. But I don't think the fact that people want to live in remote areas -- and believe me, my once-small town isn't so remote anymore -- is the major issue. I think it's probably a factor of human nature we'll never be able to totally influence or control. Proper advanced planning, thoughtful development, and personal responsibility -- these are the keys to managing the ever-present human need for space with the dwindling amount of space available.

As the old saying goes, reports of the death of environmentalism are premature. I know it's a debate that has caused much hand-wringing in many corners of the country. It has, interestingly, actually re-energized many of the conservation-minded folks I know. I am fortunate to work with some of the great conservationists in the country today, and I only see redoubled efforts to educate, protect, and solve conservation challenges on the landscape.