The Canadian Record (Canadian, Tex.), Vol. 110, No. 37, Ed. 1 Thursday, September 14, 2000 Page: 4 of 28
twenty eight pages : ill. ; page 19 x 13 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THURSDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2000
(fat&diClH RECORD
letters
l^to the editors
The Arkansas River shiner issue
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) can be a confusing and
sometimes threatening law to many, particularly those living in areas
where most of the land is in private ownership. A common misconcep-
tion held by private landowners is that the presence of a species lusted
under the ESA means that restrictions on the use of their land are sure
to follow. Restrictions on land use were on many people's minds re-
cently when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife sen-ice held public meetings in
Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma to gather input for a proposal to desig-
nate critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner. As an employee
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sendee and a resident of Hemphill
County, 1 feel it my job to give people accurate information on issues
related to the ESA. Specifically. I would like to address certain
points raised about the Arkansas River shiner:
1. Is the Arkansas River shiner an endangered species? No. The .4r-
kansas Rnvr shiner is officially listed as threatened, and has been
listed since November 1998. "Endangered" refers to a species in dan-
ger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,
while “threatened" refers to a species likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all ora significant portion of
its range Prohibitions on the take of a listed species apply to both
categories.
opinion
Hardly experts on press ettiics....Continued from Page 2
2. Will the designation of critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner
place land use restrictions on private landowners? No. If critical habi-
tat is designated for the Arkansas River shiner, onlu federal actions
occurring within this habitat will be affected. These federal actions in-
clude actions on federal land (e g., Lake Meredith National Recre-
ation Area), and actions on private lands that use federal funds or
require some sort of federal )>ermit, such as ivetland deielopment or
modification done under the auspices of the U.S. Army Corjis of Engi-
neers. An important jmnt to note is that just because an action re-
quires a federal permit or uses federal funds, the presence of critical
habitat does not necessarily mean that the action will be prohibited.
The presence of critical habitat simply means that actions funded by
the federal government must not be detrimental to the survival of the
listed species, if an action will have no effect or will be beneficial to the
species, it can proceed
3. Why is the Arkansas River shiner issue being revisited? Although
the ESA stipulates that critical habitat be designated fora species at
the time of its listing, critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner
um not designated in 1998 because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
did not feel that it was prudent due to a lack of conservation benefit.
Several lawsuits involving critical habitat designations have been
filed over the jxist few years, and in nearly every instance the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service was forced to revisit the issue and designate
critical habitat for a species that teas already listed as threatened or
endangered The projmal to designate critical habitat for the Arkan-
sas River shiner is the result of a recent court settlement.
The take-home message that I wish to convey is that designation of
critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner will not impose a regula-
tory burden or land use restrictions for private landowners in this area.
I urge you to contact me (806-323-6636) if you have any questions con-
cerning this or any other ESA-related issue.
JOHN HUGHES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Letters to the Editor Policy
Letters to the editors of the Canadian Record are always wel-
come, and will be published if they are signed and cannot be con-
sidered libelous. We will not publish anonymous letters under any
circumstances.
We ask that all letters be accompanied by a home or work
phone number so that we can verify the letter writer’s identity if
necessary. Letters may be edited for excessive length.
Each letter should be clearly marked “Letter to the Editor,”
and should be received in our office no later than Wednesday noon
for publication in that week’s newspaper. Please mail letters to:
The Canadian Record, P.O. Box 898, Canadian, TX 79014, or by
fax to (806)323-5738, or by e-mail to lrbrown(<i well.com.
We encourage our readers to use this public forum to express
their own opinions and to address issues which are of concern to
them or to the community at large.
tate in the highest regard, and we believe they should
be part of the democratic process day in and day out,"
a Gore spokesman piously declaimed, implying that
Bush believes something quite different.
If the Texas governor doesn't exactly love, adore
and worship the press, he is hardly the first politician
to feel that way. Some of them, however, have found
more elegant, even eloquent, ways to express their
displeasure.
In the first draft of his 1796 farewell address. Presi-
dent George Washington wrote: “Some of the gazettes
... have teemed with all the invective that disappoint-
ment, ignorance of facts and malicious falsehood could
invent, to misrepresent my politics and affections; to
wound my reputation and feeling; ami to weaken, if not
entirely destroy the confidence you had been pleased
to repose in me."
That was well before Clymer and The Tunes ar
rived on the scene.
In an 1807 letter. President Thomas Jefferson ob-
served: “It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of
the press could not more completely deprive the nation
of its benefits than is done by its atwndoned prostitu-
tion to falsehood. Nothing can now be lielieved which is
seen in a newspaper.”
And that from one of the early Republic's foremost
champions of civil liberties.
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln
was regularly assailed by opposition DemocraUc news
papers and almost as frequently by his own party’s
journals. That troubled him, but he was equally dis-
mayed by the inaccuracies he often read in the North
em press.
In 1862, Lincoln commented that “with customary
newspaper exaggeration of army news, we may tie
sure that in tomorrow’s prints... all the little Colt’s re-
volvers will have grown into horse-pistols."
Angered by hostile newsjiaper accounts of his New-
Deal programs. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in
1934 criticized what later would be called the “credibil
ity gap" of the press. “Lack of confidence in the press
today is not because of the editorials," FDR explained.
“but tiecausc of the colored news stones ami the failure
on the part of some papers to pnnt the news."
Roosevelt's successor, President Harry S Truman,
had a different — ami probably healthier — attitude
toward the press “Whenever the pnws quits abusing
me, 1 know Iin in the wrong pew," the Missourian re-
called a few years after he left the While House.
“I don't mind it Iwause when they throw bricks at
me — I'm a pretty good shot myself, ami 1 usually
throw 'em back at 'em."
Maybe that's what Bush intended to do — or would
have intended, had ho realized his mike was live. Ami
for goodness’ sake, it's what Sanctimonaais Al should
do sometimes, too.
A [silitician m the national tunelight trying to con-
vince |*s>|ile that he loves, adores ami worshi|is the
press just isn't tahevalile Of all major political leaders
in U.S. history, Theodore Roosevelt may well have
stabs I the most realistic perspective on the relation
ship between the press and politicians
"We have all of us at tunes suffered from the liberty
of the press, but we have to take the good ami the bail."
he observed as a young New York state assemblyman
in 1883. “It Is a great deal tietter to err a little bit on the
sale of liavmg too much discussion ami having Ua> viru
lent language used by the press, rather than to err on
the sale of having them not say what they ought to say,
especially with reference to putibc men ami
measures."
As interesting as all this is, it is nothing more than a
distraction. It is a long-standing part of the [uliticaJ
process, and if it is to be detailed, that is more appro-
priately done ui think tanks, seminars on press ethics
ami journalism classes than on the campaign trail.
It has little to do with the issues that shoukl be fore-
most in this year’s presidential contest That’s what
both Bush ami (tore shoukl lie focusing their undivaled
attention on, whether their micruphonea are on ur off
Joe Patrick Hnm u the iqnnum jstge editor of the
Muskogee (Oklaj Daily Phoenu and Times Democrat.
E-mail JaePBcantaaolctim.
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
HIGH: 83
LOW: 54
Partly cloudy. North to
northoaat wind*
10-20 m.p.h.
HIGH: 86
LOW: 56
Partly cloudy
HIGH: 84
LOW: 56
Moatty clear
HIGH: 87
LOW: 56
Partly cloudy
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Ezzell, Nancy & Brown, Laurie Ezzell. The Canadian Record (Canadian, Tex.), Vol. 110, No. 37, Ed. 1 Thursday, September 14, 2000, newspaper, September 14, 2000; Canadian, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth736309/m1/4/: accessed July 9, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Hemphill County Library.