Subject: Re: The Truth?

From: Thomas Kral <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 14:21:36 -0700

Dear Catherine (and everyone else),

Actually, I believe that the Endagered Species Act is a very good piece
of Legislation, _as long as its beneficial intents are not abused_. You
may want to reference a posting I just put out in response to the Oct 24
posting from Jackie Miller.  My case was a glaring example of a few
overzealous F&WL agents spoiling things for everyone - with the
environment being the real casualty.  You may wish to reference the
Sept\Oct 1993 issue of _Nature Conservancy_ Magazine in which on page 5
"from the president" titled _The Boy Who Cried Wolf_ in which John C.
Sawhill summarizes that the public becomes very turned off by
environmental rhetoric which is untrue and only hurts any valid
environmental reforms in the long-run. Perhaps if agencies like the F&WL
Service had made attempts to properly inform our legislators about the
FACTS, rather than popping off their mouths with rhetoric, they (and all
of us) would not be in the present dire predicament. And sadly, our heads
of state overseeing such agencies are not always told what some of their
overzealous underlings are doing. My hope is to meet with our secretary
of the Interior in person, present him some facts and discuss real
solutions. Stay tuned!

On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, Catherine Clark wrote:

>         Did Thomas Kral really mean to state that the Endangered Species
> Act, now under severe attack by Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho and others in
> Congress, is an "unreasonable law"?  The ESA needs all the friends it can
> get at this moment.
>