Environmental Laws Under Siege

I have just read with frustration and dismay “Environmental Laws Face Siege in Legislature” (April 17), one of many articles in recent months concerning the Republican assault on environmental laws at the federal and state level. I am a registered Republican who considers himself a political moderate and an environmentalist.

To be sure, we have made significant progress cleaning up our environment in terms of reducing contaminant levels in our air, water and soil, and there is room for regulatory compromise; however, we also have ravaged biological habitat and substantially reduced biodiversity through development, overgrazing, overfishing and overhunting.

Like many of my politically concerned friends, I feel as though I must choose between politically correct, bleeding-heart, liberal intellectuals who throw money at every social problem (one extreme) and anti-environment, anti-abortion, neoconservative cretins that espouse laissez-faire, pro-development rhetoric in the name of free enterprise and the “morally right” (the other extreme). I’m fed up with both parties of our two-party system. I am one disillusioned citizen in big-time political limbo.

JACK E. WILLIAMS III

Hermosa Beach

So Assemblyman Keith Olberg (R-Victorville) thinks he can do without the Mohave ground squirrel and that saving the squirrel costs more than the animal is worth. All endangered species need to be fully protected, even the “lesser” creatures that don’t get much public sympathy. Everything has its place in the ecosystem. It’s not for us to play God and favor the existence of one species over another, because one creature appears more cuddly, more majestic, etc., than a rodent, reptile or fish.

AMY WOLFBERG

Los Angeles

I attended a “public hearing” sponsored by the new Republican Congress on the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in Bakersfield on April 17 and found it disturbing. The announced purpose was to hear from people whose lives have been affected by the ESA, and to use this testimony to find ways to do a better job of implementing the ESA. There seemed to be another agenda, however. The underlying current seemed to be that the ESA should be radically changed so that it no longer has any perceived negative impact on people.

We have heard horror stories about how the government has treated people unfairly in implementing the ESA. But I have a copy of the ESA on my bookshelf, and there is nothing in the act itself that brings these abuses about. It is the best tool available to try and save our vanishing natural resources. It is my belief that the ESA should actually be made stronger, not weaker. The changes need to be made in the way the act is implemented. Common sense and decency need to prevail in making decisions which affect the small landowner, for example. The horror stories about people losing their farms or their livelihoods, if true, are the result of poor bureaucratic judgment, not of a bad law.

There will be another public hearing at the Riverside Convention Center on April 26 at 9:30 a.m. If people are interested in seeing this process in action they should attend. The agenda is tightly controlled and only preregistered speakers are allowed, but I think simply watching this process is informative.

JAN C. SCOW

Los Angeles