An act endangered.

Byline: The Register-Guard

If the Endangered Species Act were either bird or beast, it might well be a candidate for listing.

Three decades after the act was signed into law by President Nixon, its many Republican critics in Congress have adopted a new strategy. Instead of trying to repeal or radically revamp the act in one fell swoop, they are planning to tear it apart piece by piece, as the Bush administration wages a similar assault on the regulatory front.

While the act is far from perfect and is in need of change, it is far from "broken," as many conservatives claim. It has been instrumental in the recovery from near extinction of species ranging from the American bald eagle to red wolves to the California condor to the American alligator, and has inspired conservation efforts around the world.

Since taking office in 2001, the Bush administration has worked unrelentingly to undermine the act, circumventing its provisions and skewing enforcement to benefit corporate interests.

In the Northwest, the administration recently abolished rules requiring federal foresters to search for rare species before allowing loggers to cut old-growth trees. The change fits a pattern of what has become a favorite administration strategy of settling lawsuits filed by corporate interests by agreeing to roll back critical regulatory protections rather than to attempting to prevail in the courts.

Congressional Republicans recently have accelerated their push to rewrite key provisions of the act. Leading the way is Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Resources Committee, who has made several failed attempts at wholesale rewrites over the past decade.

Now, Pombo believes a more effective strategy is to "break down" the law through a series of reforms, including his own proposal to change how critical habitats are designated.

Republican members of Oregon's congressional delegation haven't been idle. Sen. Gordon Smith and Rep. Greg Walden have introduced bills requiring that federal agencies, before deciding to list a species for protection, give greater weight to scientific and commercial data that has been "peer reviewed" by independent experts.

The administration has been working on a similar track, pushing new rules to require peer review practices in all agencies - an effort government scientists have warned will only create more obstacles and delays, increase costs and restrict their options.

The wolves in Congress and the administration should stop looking for ways to rip apart this important law. Instead, they should focus on making constructive improvements that should be part of a long-overdue comprehensive reauthorization of the act. An example of such an improvement is the recent recommendation by Western governors that measurable recovery goals be established at the time of listing. There are also many ways that the law could be simplified and enforcement costs controlled.

Smith, Walden and their GOP colleagues should remember that Congress passed the Endangered Species Act by overwhelming 355-4 margins in the House and 92-0 in the Senate with the support of a Republican president. Despite its flaws, the law has proven to be this nation's strongest, most visionary and most effective environmental law. It will benefit future generations as long as there are species left to protect.