We cannot discern from Kevin Miller’s story on the reconsideration of the recent lynx-habitat decision, “Feds toss controversial wildcat habitat rule” (Bangor Daily News, Nov. 28), that there are pronounced advantages to federal protection of endangered species such as the Canada lynx. By selective quotation, the emphasis given to the BDN summary is that private landowners (such as Plum Creek) should be trusted to manage their own properties for protection of lynx, rather than having to be subject to what they consider an onerous layer of federal regulation.

Miller failed to make clear that the 10,600 square miles in contention – a mandatory protection zone taken away as the result of improprieties on the part of state and federal officials in November 2006 – had been designated as critical habitat for the lynx a year earlier by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, acting on orders from a federal court after a successful lawsuit by environmental groups. Nor did he balance his account by citing the key reasons that the November 2005 ruling should be reinstated. Regrettably, the same bias in favor of a “voluntary” approach is expressed in a BDN editorial of July 27.

By contrast, the full argument is set out compellingly in a Portland Press Herald story on the same news event on Nov. 29 subtitled: “Conservationists … say only federally designated [lynx] habitat would clearly preserve the land.” The writer, John Richardson, is also the author of a masterful back story published on Sept. 9 about the USF&W scandal involving lynx protection that should be required reading for anyone yet to be convinced that the North Woods is worth preserving – or who is apathetic about corporate pressure on our elected officials. Richardson’s timeline documents that Julie McDonald, the disgraced USF&W official, met (not “apparently met,” as BDN would have it) with representatives of Plum Creek and other timber company executives at least three times to influence the outcome of federal rule-making proceedings.

Kevin Miller calls the federal program for lynx protection “controversial,” but the term applies more aptly to the corrupt political favors that led to the re-evaluation in process today. Plum Creek lobbied hard for these favors in an attempt to keep the destruction of critical lynx habitat out of consideration during the Land Use Regulation Commission review of its development plan.

“Controversial” would apply also to USF&W officials now speculating in advance about exempting from the rule landowners like Plum Creek whose past behavior – including repeated violations of environmental laws, for which they have incurred record-breaking fines – shows that they are not be trusted.

Similarities in the two news stories suggest that they could have come from a press release generated by USF&W, but the source who gets the last word makes all the difference.

In the end, in the face of intense corporate pressure to weaken environmental standards, there should be no compromise. Sprawling development like that of Plum Creek is incompatible with critical habitat.

Simply put, the destruction of wildlife corridors that would result from a project of this magnitude, such as tree removal and damage from heavy construction equipment, would violate the Endangered Species Act. Plum Creek has met none of the requirements – including filing of a habitat-conservation plan and securing of an incidental-take permit – for protection of a threatened species that, by law, cannot be “harassed, harmed, hunted, wounded,” etc.

It follows that LURC should reject the “controversial” Plum Creek resort application if only because its massive construction of buildings and roads would deny lynx the protections guaranteed under ESA.

Jody Spear lives in Harborside.