• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

Support Our Annual Fund Drive!fund-drive-progress-thermometer

We only shake our readers down two times a year, but when we ask we mean it. So, please, help as much as you can. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Grizzly Delisting and the Irony of Public Comments

shutterstock_322055822 2

Let me just spit it out.

When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asks for public comments, they don’t mean you, and they don’t mean me. In fact, they don’t mean the public at all.

Dan Ashe, the Director of the USFWS, highlighted the public’s ability to make public comments in his March 3rd announcement of the agency’s proposal to delist grizzlies from the endangered species list and he made much ado about the importance of the public’s input.

Did he mean it? In a word, no.

The public comment process as currently constituted is intended – by design – to exclude the public from making public comments.

From the press release announcing delisting:

“The Service will be seeking review and comment by the public, other federal and state agencies, and independent scientists.” And it goes on to say, “Please note that submissions merely supporting or opposing a potential delisting, without supporting documentation, will not be considered in making a determination.”

What Director Ashe didn’t mention was that the delisting documents to be commented upon consist of over 800 pages of dense, bureaucratic jargon and incorporates by reference over 250 hard-to-find – and harder to read – scientific reports, management plans and other documents, in all totaling many thousands of pages.

We’re talking about an undertaking of biblical proportions here, as in reading the bible three or four times during a 60-day period…and then writing comments.

Recently, at the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee meeting in Bozeman, we finally learned how the grizzly delisting “public comment” process played out.

The public submitted 290,000 comments to the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the public comment period that ended May 10, 2016.

Of those 290,000 comments, only 12,000 were considered “unique.” The other 278,000 don’t count.

Of those 12,000, only ten to twenty percent were considered “substantive,” at most 2,400 comments. The other 9,600 don’t count.

So, out of 290,000 comments only 2,400 comments will be “considered in making a determination” to delist grizzly bears.

Only 8 out of every 1,000 submitted comments will be considered. That’s eight tenths of one percent of the comments submitted by the American public.

99.2% of the public’s comments are essentially thrown out the window. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a very efficient filter.

Let’s ask a question. Who actually has the wherewithal to make public comments that can pass through the USFWS filter, on a proposal that runs to thousands of pages?

Well, big non-profits can. They have the money, and some of them employ scientists that can understand the jargon and the voluminous scientific reports.

So, too, can mid- to large-sized corporations. They also have the money and the people, some of them scientists. They also have a profit motive.

Of course, other government agencies are invited to comment and they use our tax dollars to pay our public servants to write their “public” comments.

And finally, scientists – who have something of a free pass. But here is the kicker: The government and private industry are the largest employers of scientists and much, perhaps most, funding for scientists comes from government and industry.

And how about you? Are you one of the 288,600 people whose voices are being disregarded?

The USFWS will respond that decisions are to be made based on science and that they are justified in disregarding 99.2% of submitted comments. Where does that leave the average non-scientific American that was bamboozled into thinking that the comment they submitted actually mattered?

Quite simply, the public comment process provided by the USFWS has utterly failed them.

So where is the public process that allows them to weigh in on the important public policy issue of removing grizzly bears from the endangered species list? There isn’t one. The American public has been disenfranchised, marginalized. And so less than 1% of the public comments will be “considered in making a determination.”

If the public comment process was a car, would you buy it?

Not “no,” but “hell no!” The public comment process is broken, rigged, dysfunctional to the needs, desires and wishes of the American people. It is a farce.

At the bottom of the press release that announced delisting is this mission statement: “The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

The “others” the USFWS wants to work with apparently aren’t you and me. They don’t want us to tell them what we, the American people, view as a “continuing benefit.” One wonders if they actually realize who the American people are.

Two final questions: Exactly who are the less than 2,400 commenters whose comments will be “considered in making a determination?” And why, exactly, are their voices more important than yours?

More articles by:

Kent Nelson is the executive director of Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, a Wyoming non-profit that promotes ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
October 14, 2019
Ann Robertson
Class Struggle is Still the Issue
Mike Miller
Global Climate Strike: From Protest To Power?
Patrick Cockburn
As Turkey Prepares to Slice Through Syria, the US has Cleared a New Breeding Ground for Isis
John Feffer
Trump’s Undeclared State of Emergency
Dean Baker
The Economics and Politics of Financial Transactions Taxes and Wealth Taxes
Jonah Raskin
What Evil Empire?
Nino Pagliccia
The Apotheosis of Emperors
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A Passion for Writing
Basav Sen
The Oil Despots
Brett Wilkins
‘No Friend But the Mountains’: A History of US Betrayal of the Kurds
John Kendall Hawkins
Assange: Enema of the State
Scott Owen
Truth, Justice and Life
Thomas Knapp
“The Grid” is the Problem, Not the Solution
Rob Kall
Republicans Are Going to Remove Trump Soon
Cesar Chelala
Lebanon, Dreamland
Weekend Edition
October 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Becky Grant
CounterPunch in Peril?
Anthony DiMaggio
Fake News in Trump’s America
Andrew Levine
Trump’s End Days
Jeffrey St. Clair
High Plains Grifter: the Life and Crimes of George W. Bush
Patrick Cockburn
Kurdish Fighters Always Feared Trump Would be a Treacherous Ally
Paul Street
On the TrumpenLeft and False Equivalence
Dave Lindorff
Sure Trump is ‘Betraying the Kurds!’ But What’s New about That?
Rob Urie
Democrats Impeach Joe Biden, Fiddle as the Planet Burns
Sam Pizzigati
Inequality is Literally Killing Us
Jill Richardson
What Life on the Margins Feels Like
Mitchell Zimmerman
IMPOTUS: Droit de seigneur at Mar-a-Lago
Robert Hunziker
Methane SOS
Lawrence Davidson
Donald Trump, the Christian Warrior
William Hartung – Mandy Smithburger
The Pentagon is Pledging to Reform Itself, Again. It Won’t.
Richard Moser
The Empire Is Running Out of War Stories. Or is it? Will American Exceptionalism Rise Again?
Roger Harris
Why Trump is Facing Impeachment
Doug Lummis
Everything Going Wrong in Okinawa
Ramzy Baroud
Administrative Torture: Free Heba al-Labadi, a Jordanian Citizen in Israeli Prison
Christopher Ketcham
Ode to the Drums of Ginger Baker
W. T. Whitney
Upcoming Elections Represent Testing Time for Bolivia’s Socialist Government
Louis Proyect
Building Soldier Resistance Under the Shadows of Fascism
Mark Ashwill
Reflections on General Giap and the End of an Era in Vietnam
Gabriel Leão
Killing the Messengers: Rising Violence Against Journalists and Indigenous Leaders Defending the Amazon
Graham Peebles
Climate Change: All Talk No Action
Arthur Hoyle
The Meaning of Donald Trump
Dean Baker
Those Quaint Corporate Scandals in Japan
Laura Santina
Take Their Feet Off Our Necks
Julian Vigo
The New Workers’ Revolution is Afoot
Robert Koehler
The Rights of Nature
Dan Bacher
New Report Reveals Oil Waste in CA Aquifers
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail