Published: Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The news story “Pyle's endangered species bill spurs South Buffalo debate” (Sept. 18 and TribLIVE.com) about a hearing on the proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act reported on the state Game Commission's and Fish and Boat Commission's positions about the bill. Those positions must be challenged.
Legislation allowing for an independent review of proposed additions to threatened or endangered species of plants and animals for projects requiring state permits has been misrepresented and the subject of scare tactics.
The commissions refuse to allow oversight of these decisions by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC), established to ensure state government decisions are legal and whose review is applicable to every other state government agency and action.
The article misstated that the IRRC would be able to add or remove species for threatened or endangered status. That is not true. The IRRC would only evaluate proposals from the two commissions.
Executives from the commissions have not answered direct questions about the processes followed to propose a new endangered species and have been evasive in providing information about their “independent oversight boards” that review additions for the threatened and endangered lists.
In an age of transparency in government, how can these commissions operate without their decisions being subject to an independent review?
Why aren't groups that normally squawk for more public participation about every government decision doing the same in this case?
Louis D. D'Amico
The writer is president and executive director of the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association (pioga.org).
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- ACA deserves support
- Hunt where the deer are
- Handled it well
- Harming, not improving
- About time for Gilpin
- Remember Pearl Harbor
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Thanks to our veterans
- Ethanol’s benefits
- Promotion questionable
- Prevailing wage downsides II