The Bulldozer Versus the Gnatcatcher : Witness this paradigm of the conflict between development and species preservation

The newest celebrities of the animal kingdom are species that many people never heard of before. As environmentalists and business interests increasingly have locked horns in recent years over the fate of dwindling open space, the snail darter, the spotted owl, the kangaroo rat and, most recently, the gnatcatcher of Southern California have moved into the public eye.

After being besieged with conflicting claims about whether the tiny songbird was endangered--and going against the recommendation of its own staff--the state Fish and Game Commission last week decided against a listing for the gnatcatcher. But almost certainly this decision is not so much an end as a way station along the road to court. It’s becoming clear that the gnatcatcher is merely a symbol for a larger political battle between the rights of property owners and the protection of the environment.

The commissioners rejected the environmentalists’ petition in part because of reassurances from the Wilson Administration of an impending deal with developers setting aside tracts of land for the gnatcatcher. That’s a good idea, but a look at what happened in Orange County last week illustrates how time lost, even to such well-intentioned negotiation, can translate into lost habitat. In the days leading up to the commission’s decision, 43 acres containing habitat were plowed under when the Orange County toll road authority, answering to no one, started its bulldozers along the proposed Foothill tollway route.

Moreover, the record of eagerness of planning officials to hang a green light over the path of developers has lent special urgency to balancing growth against conservation.

This symbolic debate can be conducted in good faith only if the temptation to bulldoze first and ask questions later is resisted from the governor’s office on down to local county planning departments.