Critics of the original Endangered Species Act, which this bill would replace, say it needs drastic revision because the number of threatened and endangered species keeps increasing. Yet many of these same critics are career politicians who consistently fail to adequately fund species recovery efforts, such as critical habitat protection.

This is the real problem, not some flaw in the Endangered Species Act. Pombo's measure would be more aptly named "extinction bill" since it would "solve" this problem by doing away with critical habitat protection altogether.

Despite inadequate funding, the Endangered Species Act has truly been a stunning success, having brought many species back from the brink of extinction, among them the magnificent California condor, grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, sea otter and black-footed ferret.

Are we now willing to risk consigning perhaps thousands of species to the void of extinction so that the greediest among us can extort payoffs from the rest of us for not destroying critical habitats? Are we similarly willing to pay landowners for not poisoning streams that cross their land, factories for not spewing toxic chemicals into our atmosphere?

Species are like threads in a fabric: pull one out and the entire fabric begins to unravel, more species disappear and ecosystems break down. Watersheds will be degraded and life on planet Earth impoverished.

The Endangered Species Act works. The only serious question is, do we human beings have a moral duty and the resolve to try to prevent species extinctions? I say we do and we must.

---

Kirk C. Robinson is executive director of Western Wildlife Conservancy.