Drillers back endangered species changes
As gas drilling booms in Pennsylvania, major industry groups are backing efforts to change the state's endangered and threatened species laws, alterations that environmentalists say could have far-reaching effects on wildlife.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association, and the Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania outlined their support in an Aug. 26 letter obtained by The Associated Press. The industry said the proposed legislation provides for “more efficient and effective resource development” as well as “transparency and accountability.”
Legislation in the state House and Senate would put some limits on the exclusive authority that the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission have to list birds, animals, fish and other species, and to grant special consideration to special wild trout streams.
Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-Apollo, is the lead sponsor of the House proposal.
The bills would give the state Independent Regulatory Review Commission a major role in the listing process.
George Jugovic, a lawyer with the environmental group Penn Future, said the existing system is working well, and that the political independence of the Game and Fish commissions makes them better able to protect at-risk species. In contrast, the Regulatory Review Commission members are political appointees.
The legislation “is a bad idea wrapped in a number of bad ideas,” Jugovic said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.