Overwhelming Editorial Opposition to Pombo's Attack on Wildlife

"Congressman Pombo, who calls himself a 'conservative,' needs to gain a true understanding of what conservation really means."

The Gilroy Dispatch
April 21, 2006

"The act should be updated, not gutted. For example, Congress should emphasize saving entire ecosystems, not just individual species."

The Denver Post
February 15, 2006

"DeLay's cozy attitude toward lobbyists seems to have rubbed off on Pombo..."

The LA Times
January 25, 2006

"McCloskey's experience and integrity make him an ideal opponent for the increasingly discredited Pombo."

San Jose Mercury News
January 25, 2006

"I will say that Pombo's attempt to work over the Endangered Species Act has the same relationship to environmental protection that Howard Stern has to good taste."

The Arizona Republic
December 25, 2005

"His intention is clearly to disrupt the protection of threatened animals."

Fort Wayne News Sentinel
November 30, 2005

"He's the dark knight of the environment who wants to gut endangered-species protections and is now clearing the way for open-water drilling."

San Francisco Chronicle
October 21, 2005

“While environmentalists are prepared to embrace some changes, the House version rewards developers at the expense of species.”

Tennessean
October 7, 2005

“Unfortunately, the U.S. House recently approved a bill sponsored by a long-time critic of the act – Richard Pombo, a California Republican – that would weaken it while also fattening developers’ pockets.”

Raleigh News and Observer
October 6, 2005

“Mr. Pombo’s disingenuously named “Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act” has nothing to do with recovery, unless you believe that developers possess a divinely inspired plan for every scrap of vacant land left in America .”

Toledo Blade
October 1, 2005

“That persistent pitter-patter coming from the direction of Washington, D.C., is the sound of ideologues in Congress trying to hustle one of this nation’s most successful conservation laws toward oblivion.”

“The cynically titled ‘Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act” is the brainchild of U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo.”

Gainesville Sun
October 2, 2005

“In today’s Washington Swamp, environmental stewardship has given way to a survival of the fittest philosophy. And make no mistake: The fittest in the Swamp are deemed to be those who can throw the most money at candidates and their political parties, hire the best lobbyists…”

“And so why should it surprise anyone that the U.S. House of Representatives voted… to gut the Endangered Species Act?”

“It comes down to this. Bald eagles don’t vote. Ranchers and farmers do. Alligators don’t give campaign contributions. Corporations do. Sea turtles don’t have PACs. Property rights activists do.”

“Endangered Condo Act.”

“It’s unfortunate that some lawmakers from California backed gutting the very law that has saved the California sea otter, the California condor and even our national symbol, the eagle, from extinction.”

Palm Springs Desert Sun
October 1, 2005

“Reckless Endangerment”

St. Petersburg Times
October 1, 2005

“U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo has an unusual sense of humor. Recently the California Republican drafted legislation to balance a sector of the federal budget by selling off 15 national parks.”

Minneapolis Star-Tribune
September 29, 2005

“If there were something called the dangerous species list, Richard Pombo would be on it. He’s the misguided California congressman who wants to take a meat ax to the Endangered Species Act.”

Charlotte Observer
September 29, 2005

“The law has been a bulwark of environmental protection since it was enacted in 1973 with unanimous approval from the Senate and just five opposing votes in the House. Without it, the grizzly bear, the American alligator, the Florida panther, the bald eagle, and the peregrine falcon would likely no longer exist in the lower 48 states. To increase the lamentably short roster of saved species, Congress should be working to strengthen the law, not weaken it.”

Boston Globe
September 29, 2005

“It’s good to know that someone’s looking out for those poor, impoverished developers.”

Park Rapids Enterprise
September 28, 2005

“Pombo… is chairman of the House Resources Committee and in a position to deliver for the special interests that want the bill. The National Association of Home Builders, for instance, lauds Pombo’s proposal for eliminating habitat protections.”

Kansas City Star
September 28, 2005

“Pombo’s bill is not ultimately concerned with helping species recover faster. It is about reducing the power of federal wildlife agencies and lifting the burden of species protections from private landowners and those who log, mine and drill in public lands.”

The Oregonian
September 28, 2005

“Rep. Richard Pombo… unveiled a complex rewriting of the law that tilts too far to the property rights movement that embraces him.”

Sacramento Bee
September 26, 2005

“Rewrite of Endangered Species Act would gut it.”

Arizona Daily Star
September 26, 2005

“Given his reputation as the biggest critic in the Congress of the Endangered Species Act, it’s hardly surprising that Rep. Richard Pombo would introduce legislation to weaken the nation’s efforts to preserve rare plants and animals.”

Los Angeles Times
September 26, 2005

“The primary law responsible for the resurgence of the bald eagle is under attack.”

Beaufort Gazette
September 25, 2005

“Putting Profits before Species.”

“The endangered Species Act has protected more than 1,800 animal and plant species. Only nine have gone extinct. Congress should not mess with a 99.5 percent success rate.”

The Roanoke Times
September 25, 2005

“Pombo hatchets the heart of the present rules.”

San Francisco Chronicle
September 25, 2005

“Pombo… would essentially replace the 1973 act with something far friendlier to mining, timber and other big extraction interests that find the original act annoying.”

Newsday
September 24, 2005

“A developer-friendly bill that waters down the 32-year old Endangered Species Act… “

Las Vegas Sun
September 23, 2005

“This proposal isn’t what it seems… it will do more harm than good to endangered species.”

Modesto Bee
September 22, 2005