Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s announcement the other day that more than two dozen imperiled plants and animals now can be removed from the endangered species list is a stunning triumph in this nation’s selfless effort to live in harmony with the rest of creation.

Either that, or it’s a bald-faced, transparent ploy to boost support for a law that failed. Or perhaps it’s a well-intentioned but somewhat desperate effort to stave off the final onslaught by a Congress increasingly under the sway of seal-clubbing clear-cutters.

Timing is everything, and the big problem with Babbitt’s announcement that 29 species are on the mend is its timing. This is the 25th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, which certainly is occasion for a thorough assessment. This also is the year the ESA is up for reauthorization by a grouchily conservative Congress and, to boot, the year Interior is asking that funding to carry out the act be hiked handsomely, from $70 million to $100 million.

In the entirety of the ESA’s first quarter-century, only seven species have been removed from the list, while 1,135 remained. Suddenly, with reauthorization stalled in Congress and with $30 million on the line, the bald eagle, the Missouri bladder-pod and 27 other flora and fauna complete their comebacks.

Rather than vindicate the ESA, Babbitt has done nothing more than preach to the choir, and many choir members are raising eyebrows. Already, some of the ESA’s most staunch supporters are questioning whether news of this mass recovery is driven by science or politics. Critics of the law who have long said a record of 7-1,135 does not justify the hundreds of millions in public money and the untold expense to the private sector aren’t going to feel much better about 36-1,106, especially when that 29-species swing carries the stink of manipulation.

For 25 years, the ESA debate has been framed by the extremes, with those who worship tree snails going head-to-head with the cult of the bulldozer. That’s unfortunate. All right-thinking people, liberals and conservatives alike, believe humans have a moral obligation to balance, truly balance, their needs with those of nature. And among the vast majority that supports the protection of endangered species there are legitimate points of disagreement, such as whether the approach to habitat conservation on private property should be less punitive and more rewards-based. But legitimate points are not likely to get the thoughtful debate they deserve now that the central concern is to what extent the Clinton administration has — once again — engaged in shameless self-promotion.

Respected environmentalists already say they will thoroughly scrutinize the de-listing proposal and the supporting data to ensure it’s all on the level. The law’s long-standing critics are sure to do the same. If it’s legit, that would be wonderful, not to mention extremely serendipitious, news. If not, if Interior cooked the books, Secretary Babbitt is going to have a lot of explaining to do to the Dismal Swamp shrew.