Rep. Glenn “G.T.” Thompson (R-Penn.), a House Natural Resources Committee member, is one of a group of lawmakers expressing concern in a committee report released Monday that alleges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agency is making biased decisions and hiding information from the public when it adds animals to the Endangered Species List.
The report accuses Fish and Wildlife (FWS) of suspicious activity in the peer-review process for 13 cases the agency worked on since 2013. Some problems included consulting the same scientists who research certain animals to act as peer reviewers, rather than asking impartial parties. The report also criticizes the way FWS reports its findings to the public, alleging it hides details and operates under the public’s radar.
“This report reinforces existing concerns over the lack of transparency and questionable processes used by the federal government to develop listing designations under the Endangered Species Act,” Thompson said.
Thompson cites the northern long-eared bat as an example. The scientific community disagrees whether the bat should be listed as endangered due to white-nose syndrome. Some experts say it could kill off the animals completely if states don’t protect the bats’ caves, while others say eliminating the environmental stressors would not cure the syndrome and would cost states such as Pennsylvania significant amounts of money.
FWS keeps pushing to add the bat to the Endangered Species List, Thompson said.
“The agency has moved forward with the listing proposal despite broad disagreement over the science and peer-review protocols used to support the designation,” Thompson said.
A decision on the bat’s status is expected by April 2015.
“It is my hope that the Fish and Wildlife Service addresses these failures before moving forward with an ill-considered endangered listing that will have dramatic consequences for Pennsylvania’s economy without addressing the underlying disease impacting the northern long eared bat,” Thompson said.
The report also accuses FWS of inconsistency in disclosing who serves as peer reviewers, who makes various endangered-species decisions, and which scientists’ comments appear on each proposal.