It has taken me decades to be recognized as an environmental extremist. My “attack” on Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, a National Rifle Association board member, in Sierra Magazine fomented a mass exodus from the Outdoor Writers Association of America. I serve on two foundations that award major grants to groups defending land from developers, and I write a muckraking column for Audubon called “Incite.”

Actually, I’m an extremist only as defined by people who perceive fish and wildlife as basically in the way. For those folks, all environmentalists are extremists. But radical green groups do exist—and you and I are a major source of revenue for them.

The Interior Department must respond within 90 days to petitions to list species under the Endangered Species Act. Otherwise, petitioners like the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) get to sue and collect attorney fees from the Justice Department.

For 2009, the CBD reported income of $1,173,517 in “legal settlement.” The center also shakes down taxpayers directly from Interior Department funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and for missed deadlines when the agency can’t keep up with the broadside of Freedom of Information Act requests. The Center for Biological Diversity has two imitators: WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project.

Kierán Suckling, who directs and co-founded the Tucson-based CBD, boasts that he engages in psychological warfare by causing stress to already stressed public servants. “They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed—and they are,” he told High Country News. “So they become much more willing to play by our rules.”

Those rules include bending the truth like pretzel dough. For example, after the center posted photos on its website depicting what it claimed was Arizona rancher Jim Chilton’s cow-denuded grazing allotment, Chilton sued. When Chilton produced evidence that the photos showed a campsite and a parking lot, a court awarded him $600,000 in damages.

“Ranching should end,” proclaims Suckling. “Good riddance.” But the only problem with ranching is that it’s not always done right. And even when it’s done wrong, it saves land from development.

Amos Eno runs the hugely successful Yarmouth, Maine-based Resources First Foundation, an outfit that, among other things, assists ranchers who want to restore native ecosystems. Earlier, he worked at Interior’s Endangered Species Program, then went on to direct the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Eno figures the feds could “recover and delist three dozen species” with the resources they spend responding to the CBD’s litigation.

“The amount of money CBD makes suing is just obscene,” he told me. “They’re one of the reasons the Endangered Species Act has become so dysfunctional.”

A senior Obama official had this to say: “CBD has probably sued Interior more than all other groups combined. They’ve divested that agency of any control over Endangered Species Act priorities and caused a huge drain on resources. In April, for instance, CBD petitioned to list 404 species, knowing full well that biologists can’t make the required findings in 90 days.”

Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and his Fish and Wildlife Service director, Jamie Clark, together saved the Endangered Species Act from a hostile Congress. One way they did this was with brilliant habitat-conservation plans that rewarded landowners for harboring endangered species.

A few plans were flawed, but the center scarcely saw one that it didn’t hate.

Clark offered this: “Back then, the suits came mostly from CBD. Now I think CBD and WildEarth Guardians are trying to see who can sue most. … Citizens need to be able to petition for species in trouble, but this has become an industry.”

Acquiring the public’s attention seems to motivate environmental extremists almost as much as acquiring the public’s money. Recently, the CBD petitioned the EPA to ban lead ammunition and fishing weights. There are lots of inexpensive, non-toxic alternatives, and lead projectiles for hunting and lead sinkers small enough to be ingested by birds do need to be banned.

But the Center for Biological Diversity sought a ban on everything—no exception for the military, target-shooting or deep-sea sinkers that ostriches couldn’t swallow. It seems inconceivable that the center didn’t know its petition was going nowhere. But for a year, its name has been all over the news, and now the center is suing the EPA.

The Center for Biological Diversity gives every environmentalist a bad name.

3 replies on “Guest Commentary”

  1. Thank you for publishing Ted Williams’ article regarding the Center for Biological Diversity. I worked for the National Audubon Society for ten years, and submitted a resume to CBD. I asked the lady who interviewed me over the telephone if CBD had any scientists on board. The answer was “no.”

    It is a disappointment to discover that organizations parading as environmental soldiers are actually just raking in cash by filing cases, not against BP, not against Massey Energy, but against the EPA.

    CBD is headquartered in Tucson. This is one company we do not need. It would be different if a company were straight-forward corrupt, but drawing in suckers like me by posing as earth-friendly is unconscionable.

  2. Good news for endangered species. Bad news for Mr. Williams: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just ruled on the Endangered Species Act listing petition that Williams complained so much about. All 374 of the aquatic Southeast species in the Center’s year-long, 1,400 page petition were given a positive protection ruling. The rest of the 404 will be ruled on later this year.

    Here’s the press release:

    374 Southeast Species Move Toward Endangered Species Act Protection

    Florida Sandhill Crane, Alabama Map Turtle, Streamside Salamander Among Hundreds of
    Freshwater Species in 12 States That May Get New Protection

    WASHINGTON— In response to a 2010 scientific petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today found that protection of 374 freshwater species in 12 southeastern states may be warranted under the Endangered Species Act. The decision was made in accordance with a historic settlement agreement reached this summer between the Center and the government to push 757 of the country’s least protected, but most imperiled, species toward Endangered Species Act protection.

    “With today’s finding that 374 southeastern freshwater species will be considered for Endangered Species Act protection, it’s clear the Fish and Wildlife Service is finally taking action to help hundreds of American species that desperately need a lifeline,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director with the Center. “Like so many species in our ever-more crowded world, these 374 species face a multitude of threats to their survival — habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and pressure from invasive species.”

    The 374 include 89 species of crayfish and other crustaceans; 81 plants; 78 mollusks; 51 butterflies, moths, caddisflies and other insects; 43 fish; 13 amphibians; 12 reptiles, four mammals and three birds. They are found in 12 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

    Included among the 374 species are the Florida sandhill crane, streamside salamander, Alabama map turtle, beautiful crayfish, clam-shell orchid, cobblestone tiger beetle, frecklebelly madtom and the Canoe Creek pigtoe.

    “The Southeast is home to more freshwater species than anywhere else in the world. Tragically, the region has already lost many of them to extinction,” Greenwald said. “Endangered Species Act protection for these remaining species will help stem the tide of extinction and herald the beginning of a new era of species protection in the Southeast.”

    As documented in the petition, southeastern freshwater species are threatened by many forces that have altered, and continue to alter, the region’s waterways, such as dams, pollution, sprawl, poor agricultural practices, invasive species and a warming climate.

    “Protecting these species will also protect rivers and streams that are a source of drinking water and recreation for Southeast communities,” said Greenwald. “Endangered Species Act protection will not just save these species from extinction but benefit millions of people.”

    Groups that joined the Center on the petition included Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.

    Additional Information
    For a copy of today’s finding, more information on our campaign to address the Southeast freshwater extinction crisis, a copy of the petition, a list of species by state and a slideshow of a sample of the species, please visit:
    http://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/1000_species/the_southeast_freshwater_extinction_crisis/index.html

    For more information on our landmark settlement agreement, please visit:
    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/species_agreement/index.html

Comments are closed.