florida panther loses federal protection

Like they abandon anything native when it is still at some critical stage. Way too many traffic accidents in pumas in Florida!!! This requires USFWS to ACT and not sit around to do nothing.
 
DavidBrown said:
I did a Google search for this and found no supporting evidence for this article. If this did happen it would be huge news and people would be screaming about it all over. Maybe this article is an April Fools joke or something - unfortunately it does sound credible...
Click to expand...

see this page: Fish and Wildlife Service | North Florida ESO Jacksonville

There are links at the bottom to various pdfs, and a link at the top to another article (to which this one is in response to).

By Nick Wiley and Cindy Dohner

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission took an important step last year to streamline and simplify a process to protect threatened and endangered species.

The amendment to our long-standing cooperative agreement — the first of its kind — represents a cooperative, load-sharing arrangement that consolidates two permitting processes into one, serves our citizens more efficiently and enhances our conservation work to protect imperiled species.

All existing Endangered Species Act requirements remain in place. It represents our strong partnership and the belief that the agreement will allow both agencies to concentrate our resources on what matters most: conserving Florida’s unique fish and wildlife for the continuing benefit of Floridians from the Panhandle to the Keys.

Here’s how the cooperative agreement works: The commission’s biologists, working with the service, will produce permitting guidelines, or plans, for any species it wishes to include under the agreement. The plans will outline the condition of the species and prescribe ground rules for the commission’s issuance of permits authorizing direct or incidental take of the species.

The rules will include a suite of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the species. The state will hold stakeholder meetings during the drafting process and submit proposed plans to the service for review and approval.

The service, in turn, will subject the plans to the requirements of the consultation process (a biological opinion) of the ESA, as well as to an environmental effects analysis and public comment period under the National Environmental Policy Act. Only if a plan is approved by the service can the commission issue permits under the agreement for take of the species, subject to the conditions established by the Service.

Once a plan is approved, and as permit applications are received by the commission, each will be carefully reviewed exactly as the law already requires — without the extra bureaucracy of a second permitting process. The commission will provide real-time public access to permit applications and decisions on its web site at MyFWC.com. An applicant may also decide to forego the commission’s permitting process, and choose to obtain a federal permit from the service.

It’s important to note that before this cooperative agreement was finalized, the commission strengthened its rules protecting imperiled species, already among the toughest in the nation. It was a completely transparent process. The commission held 15 stakeholder sessions from 2008 through 2010 and three public comment periods in 2009 to solicit feedback and input. The agreement also was discussed at two commission meetings in 2009, and at a third commission meeting in 2010 when the stronger rules were adopted to ensure the commission could meet or exceed the requirements of the ESA.

In addition, before entering into the agreement, the service published a draft environmental assessment analyzing the effects of entering into the agreement, and sought public review and comments on the proposed action. A majority of comments supported a more efficient process for permit issuance that would neither compromise the stringency of rules already in place, nor hamper the recovery and conservation of imperiled species. The assessment was finalized in 2011.

In these days of ever-tightening budgets, fewer resources, and increased workload, this is a positive step forward. It is an effort to minimize duplicative regulatory requirements, freeing up resources to better conserve this state’s treasured fish and wildlife. As they’ve done in the past, we are confident our dedicated biologists and managers will continue to work effectively together, using their expertise to protect and recover imperiled species.

We will do this by working with citizens and partners through this inclusive approach to protect the fish and wildlife that make Florida such a remarkable place to live.

Nick Wiley is the executive director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Cindy Dohner is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Regional Director.
Click to expand...

The other (linked) article to which the above is a response:
Editorial: Deck stacked for developers | Tampa Bay Times
There is a reason everyone kept quiet about the federal government handing the state the power to grant development permits that could hurt Florida panthers, gopher tortoises and other endangered species. It's letting the fox guard the henhouse, and it's indefensible.

It turns out the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last year quietly handed its authority to grant those permits to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. As Tampa Bay Times staff writer Craig Pittman reported Friday, there were no public hearings and no big public announcement of this unique giveaway. No wonder.

The state wildlife commission is not exactly aggressive in protecting wildlife from development. Environmental groups say between 2005 and 2007, the commission rarely commented about proposed developments and had little to say when it did respond. Developers like the switch because they complain the federal wildlife service takes too long to issue permits. They also like a stacked deck.

The state wildlife commission's seven members includes two developers, a paving contractor, a land-use attorney, a cattle rancher, a lobbyist and a fellow at a libertarian think tank. Now they are deciding whether to issue permits for developments that could result in injury or death of an endangered species? That hardly seems like a fair fight, even for a Florida panther.

There is a reason the federal government should have the authority to grant these sorts of permits and set nutrient limits to fight water pollution, a responsibility that Washington also has handed back to Florida. States too often can't be trusted to stand up to parochial powerbrokers such as developers and campaign contributors. Florida history is rich with examples of taking the short-term financial profit over the long-term health of the environment.

The transfer of permitting power involving endangered species came to light last week as two environmental groups signaled they intend to file a lawsuit. They argue states are not intended to have the authority and that the switch violates the federal Endangered Species Act. It certainly violates the public trust. And if it is such a good idea, why weren't Floridians invited to share their views about it first?
Click to expand...


They are from March this year.
 
Thanks for the finds Chlidonias; I had no idea. This whole process has very much been under the radar.
 
I wish and hope our US forumsters will oppose this deferred powers away from national FWS, in order that a best review system remains away from short term development et cetera. It is a wildlife laws ill protected now and a free for all (even though the former review board at FWS was a development think tank anything better than unopposed state power base).
 
I obviously have no stake in this, being on the other side of the world and all (and I don't really understand how American legal issues work), but it seems to me that what the opposers are saying about it (e.g. the first link in this thread, and the second article in my post) is not actually what the situation is at all. They appear to be claiming that basically there are now no laws protecting the Florida wildlife and anything can and will be done. That is not the case at all.
 
I see where this is coming from. However, there is a definite but .., where the national administration takes a backseat. Some species cross boundaries inter-State .. what if environmental policies and other interests conflict over those borders. What will we end up with in terms of environmental laws defining (national) policies?

Look at how the Mexican wolf program is being addressed at the moment. The population released of this critical species is not self-sustaining and despite huge zoo involvement in breeding up numbers for release the national USFWS has again blocked releasing a wolf pair to the wild. Now this program works across several States' borders ... How will this new legal network and process work for the Mexican wolf or any other species?

I would appreciate opinions from other side of the Atlantic very much!!!
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
I see where this is coming from. However, there is a definite but .., where the national administration takes a backseat. Some species cross boundaries inter-State .. what if environmental policies and other interests conflict over those borders. What will we end up with in terms of environmental laws defining (national) policies?

Look at how the Mexican wolf program is being addressed at the moment. The population released of this critical species is not self-sustaining and despite huge zoo involvement in breeding up numbers for release the national USFWS has again blocked releasing a wolf pair to the wild. Now this program works across several States' borders ... How will this new legal network and process work for the Mexican wolf or any other species?

I would appreciate opinions from other side of the Atlantic very much!!!
Click to expand...

For species that cross borders like wolves there will be national coordination of the species recovery programs. The grey wolves in the Yellowstone region were not delisted until the USFWS approved management plans from Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. The thing that is going on with the Florida panther is specific to that species and does not mean that the USFWS is giving control of the Endangered Species Act to the states to do as they please.

My superficial reading of the situation is that some people are concerned that the Florida panther case may set a bad precedent for the USFWS pulling away from enforcing the Endangered Species Act. The situation certainly bears monitoring to make sure that the Florida panther case doesn't go awry.
 
DavidBrown said:
For species that cross borders like wolves there will be national coordination of the species recovery programs. The grey wolves in the Yellowstone region were not delisted until the USFWS approved management plans from Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. The thing that is going on with the Florida panther is specific to that species and does not mean that the USFWS is giving control of the Endangered Species Act to the states to do as they please.

My superficial reading of the situation is that some people are concerned that the Florida panther case may set a bad precedent for the USFWS pulling away from enforcing the Endangered Species Act. The situation certainly bears monitoring to make sure that the Florida panther case doesn't go awry.
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding the articles. The changes are not in any way specific to Florida panthers. They are to do with permit applications that affect or potentially affect any Floridian wildlife, including Florida panthers. The only reason Arizona Docent's original link in this thread was specifically about Florida panthers is because the link comes from a website about pumas.

Arizona Docent said:
But what happens if a wandering male panther ever makes it into Alabama or Georgia?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the question. (Genuinely). A wandering Florida panther would be covered by whatever laws there are in those states regarding the species. It wouldn't have anything to do with the subject of your thread (i.e. the law changes in Florida).
 
Arizona Docent said:
But what happens if a wandering male panther ever makes it into Alabama or Georgia?
Click to expand...

Mountain Lions are a protected species in Alabama (and that is a separate issue). Based on every piece of evidence I have ever seen I've always felt the Eastern Cougar was not extinct that it was for purely political reasons (and somewhat admirable to protect the everglades) the Florida Panther was made a "mascot". It seems every time a Cougar is found in the Southern Appalachians be it Alabama, Georgia or further north its always dismissed as an escaped pet always and is swept under the rug.
 
Arizona Docent said:
But what happens if a wandering male panther ever makes it into Alabama or Georgia?
Click to expand...

They are still protected under the ESA. This cooperation basically states that only one conservation agency will be managing Florida's endangered wildlife instead of two.
 
gerenuk said:
They are still protected under the ESA. This cooperation basically states that only one conservation agency will be managing Florida's endangered wildlife instead of two.
Click to expand...

That makes far more sense, and is probably a much better solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top