Application of Endangered Species Act Must Be Reviewed

Cattle and sheep ranchers are asking for the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to be more responsibly based on sound, site-specific, scientific data, according to testimony given today on behalf of the Public Lands Council (PLC) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). Jim Chilton, cattle rancher and NCBA member from Arivaca, Ariz., testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water on the problems and possible solutions regarding the ESA.

“My family first started ranching in Arizona in 1888.  Today, our town has a population of 1500 people,” Chilton said.  “The largest employer in the town and surrounding area is ranching. Federal land management agencies so seriously misapplied the ESA to the land in my federal allotments that I unfortunately was forced to conclude that the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) were using the Act to force me out of the business of ranching on historic grazing lands.”

Chilton offered numerous solutions to the problems his family has faced on his Arivaca ranch. The first is the implementation of sound science within the ESA. He called for an amendment to the ESA asking for a third-party to concur with FWS decisions to list or de-list a species.

“Because of the tremendous impact ESA can have on economics, communities, and local land use generally, we believe additional procedures are in order to ensure that no interest is unfairly minimized or excluded prior to a decision,” according to Chilton. “The agencies failed to use sound science, which in this case really equates with common sense, when they embarked on consultation for the Sonora chub and the lesser long-nosed bat.  These species were never found on my allotments, yet the government was prepared to impose onerous restrictions on my livelihood to help them.” 

Applicant participation in the consultation process was a second solution Chilton offered.

“All members of the public who are adversely affected by the results of a consultation under the ESA should be permitted, as a matter of law, to participate fully in the consultation. We were kept out of the discussion completely during the first consultation…. we were denied access to the discussions about my allotment.  Agency decision making would have benefited tremendously by a more complete illumination of the facts and science affecting the species.”   

Chilton also stressed that “if the Forest Service feels it necessary to remove a permittee from the land pursuant to the terms of a Biological Opinion issued under the ESA, the agency should be required, as a matter of law, to consider alternatives to keep that rancher in business.  Public land grazing keeps many ranchers’ operations viable, and to be forced off of the land without any rectification could be the kiss of death to many public land ranchers.” 

“The Endangered Species Act is important to livestock producers because it greatly affects the land use and economic livelihood of our members,” explains Jeff Eisenberg, executive director of the PLC. “Over 23,000 permit holders, their families, and their employees manage livestock, and depend on the vital grass resource grown on this land.”

Eisenberg notes efforts are being made to achieve a proper balance in legislation.  “We recognize the national interest in the protection of wildlife and endangered species, but we do not believe this protection should be to the exclusion of the interests of the ranchers who have worked the land for generations,” says Eisenberg. “Our goal is to achieve a balance between the issues.”