Jamie Rappaport Clark.
With what environmental organization are you affiliated?
I’m the executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife.
What does your organization do?
We work to protect native plants and animals and their habitat. Our work takes us all across the U.S. — from the halls of Capitol Hill to the mountains and plains of the West, as well as internationally, with a focus on Canada and Mexico.
What are you working on at the moment?
Right now, we are focused on protecting the Endangered Species Act from those who would weaken its protections. The ESA is one of our most important and successful laws. Of the more than 1,800 species listed under the act’s protection, only nine have been declared extinct. But some in Congress are turning their backs on this success and working to dismantle the act. Our current task is to stop them, even as we work with pro-conservation members and groups to improve the act’s effectiveness.
What long and winding road led you to your current position?
I’ve always been fascinated by the natural world. From collecting fireflies as a kid to serving as director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the natural world was always my calling. Defenders of Wildlife is a logical stop on that journey.
How many emails are currently in your inbox?
Literally hundreds. I’d be lost without my Palm Treo.
Where were you born? Where do you live now?
I was born in New York City while my dad was stationed in Iran with the Army, and I lived all over the U.S. and in Okinawa while growing up in a military family. Now I live in northern Virginia as far out as I reasonably can while still commuting to Washington, D.C., for work.
What has been the worst moment in your professional life to date?
I used to dread testifying before Congress, but it comes with the territory and I’ve gotten used to it. I’ve testified enough times now, and I’m in a much different position in the environmental community. I guess you could say I’ve overcome my discomfort and almost enjoy it.
What’s been the best?
Being sworn in as director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a terrific organization full of dedicated, professional public servants committed to saving biodiversity.
Who is your environmental hero?
I still feel like we all walk in the shadow of giants such as Aldo Leopold, Mardy Murie, and E.O. Wilson. That said, I have had the privilege to meet and work with many heroes at all levels of government and in the private sector who have taken big risks to protect our natural-resources legacy. I am constantly reminded of courage when I see colleagues step up to fight for conservation.
Who is your environmental nightmare?
Well, I haven’t seen anything as bad as the Bush administration’s policies and performance on environmental protection, but it’s a nightmare we all hopefully will wake up from by 2008.
What’s your favorite meal?
I truly like to eat healthily — lots of fruits and veggies. No one at work likes to let me handle catering for events anymore, because I always order healthy foods. The staff complains, but I know it’s good for them.
Which stereotype about environmentalists most fits you?
I really, truly love being outside. I am happiest outside the city, hiking with my husband and son. I love the quiet and pace of open space. I am not radical about it, but it does bring me peace.
What’s your favorite place or ecosystem?
No real favorites, but the northern Rockies, the Allegheny highlands of West Virginia, and the deserts of the Southwest hold special places in my heart.
What are you happy about right now?
My family continues to be a source of stability, grounding, and joy.
That’s a Rappaport
Jamie Rappaport Clark, Defenders of Wildlife.
I am an outdoor science teacher (and a fellow Towson University grad — class of 1973!) for Baltimore County Public Schools, and I often have students ask me what I perceive to be the greatest threat to biodiversity in the U.S. today. What is your take on the subject? — Carol Lancaster, Monkton, Md.
Always nice to hear from a Towson alum! By far the biggest threat to biodiversity is loss of suitable habitat for species, especially species facing extinction due to other pressures. That’s why the habitat protections of the Endangered Species Act are so important. In fact, that’s why all our environmental laws that conserve open spaces, forests, wetlands, and other habitats are so vital. After all, it hardly matters what you do for species if you don’t protect their habitat.
What hope do you have for ESA reform in the foreseeable future? Unfortunately, too many on the right use “reform” as a code word for destruction. But much about the ESA is simply broken. For example, the critical-habitat designation process has been bogged down for years, funding for endangered species’ habitat acquisitions is at all-time lows, and recovery plans have been written for only a little more than half of listed species. When will those of us seeking real improvements be able to reach across the aisle safely and seek common ground for needed reforms? — Jamison Colburn, Springfield, Mass.
It’s true that there are a number of ways to improve the effectiveness of the ESA to make it work better for all stakeholders, including wildlife. The process for designating habitat, for instance, is an area where even just a few changes would make a big difference for humans and wildlife species alike. And of course, a strong infusion of resources — both funding and staff — would help address both the growing backlog of species awaiting protection and accelerate the timeframe for many others to reach recovery. But we must be careful in this climate. As you noted, there are some who clearly would use the potential for reauthorization of the act simply as a vehicle to dismantle its protections.
What advice would you give to biologists currently employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who find that policy and management actions undertaken by the current administration are consistently contrary to the scientific opinions that they put forth as part of their job? — Name not provided, Arlington, Va.
Hang in there! I hear from a number of friends in the FWS who have the same challenge. It’s frustrating and heartbreaking to watch what’s happening inside the agency. But please remember that many of us on the outside know exactly what’s going on inside. We also know that the biologists in the FWS are among the most dedicated, passionate, and capable professionals working to save wild things and special places. We know first-hand how hard you all are working to make sure science prevails over politics. Please just keep doing what you’re doing; we’re here to help. The pendulum always swings back.
When an anti-environmental president like George W. Bush takes over and forces his pro-industry values on agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service, how do government employees who value conservation adjust their work habits to survive in such a hostile environment? — Lisa Mayo, Germantown, Md.
See my answer above. But I would also add that it is essential to stay true to your values on this issue. I sure don’t advocate falling on your collective swords, but your voices simply have to be heard. The public understands more and more the administration’s twisting of science for political ends thanks largely to people who continue to speak from the facts. I know it’s hard, but please know that the honest work being done by FWS employees, especially during these “difficult” times, is incredibly valuable to our conservation legacy.
Any comment on the nomination of Dale Hall to be FWS director? How do you feel about his memorandum on limiting the use of science contemporary to the time a species is listed in trying to recover a species (not using new science)? — Linus C., Sudbury, Mass.
I am “skeptically cautious” about Mr. Hall. I emphatically disagree with his “policy” decision on what genetic data can be used in trying to recover species and his interpretation of appropriate science in species recovery, and I was quite disappointed to see something like this coming from a career biologist. But for now, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. It is up to Mr. Hall to demonstrate that he is committed to upholding the mission of the FWS and to leading one of the finest teams of professionals I have had the privilege of serving with. I hope, if he’s confirmed, that his allegiance to the conservation of our natural resources legacy is positively demonstrated for us all to celebrate.
We — the Conservation Science Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, et al. — seem to always be on the defensive. I believe the science and populace support a positive, proactive approach to resource and environment protection. Do you think we need to turn this around and think big? Do you think we need to be on the offensive, and that we need a comprehensive approach (and legislation) to protect biodiversity, our air, water, food, natural resources? — Bruce Wright, Conservation Science Institute, Wasilla, Alaska
This is an issue that is often raised and I would cheer louder than anyone if our country’s scientific and political leaders got together to hammer out a forward-thinking, long-term policy framework for the conservation of biodiversity in this country. But it’s such a daunting task. It will take significant political will and urging by an informed public to stimulate such an initiative. That said, I would happily be part of such a process; these issues are just too important to go at piecemeal.
How do you make the case for biodiversity for its own sake when most people don’t care about things that aren’t of immediate impact to human beings’ health or welfare? Do you just continue to focus on cuddly “indicator species” hoping that a rising tide lifts all boats (protecting the other species in the process)? — David Hohmann, Bexley, Ohio
Excellent question. I am often perplexed — and dismayed — at the lack of understanding most people seem to have about these issues. That said, I believe that we have a real need to continue to educate. A strong public and personal ethic to protect the environment is present in other countries; I think we can make that happen here too. If that means focusing on popular programs and policies, secure in the knowledge that the same policies benefit “less popular” creatures much farther below the public’s radar screen, that’s OK. My colleagues in Defenders’ communications shop are always reminding me that we have to talk about biodiversity and similar issues in ways that connect with people’s lives; otherwise, they are never going to become engaged. We need to do a better job helping an increasingly urbanized society to understand the connection. So goes the critters, so goes us. It is a lesson often lost on our movement.
Are environmental policies being rewritten behind closed doors by Bush administration officials? — Leah Swab, Quitman, Ga.
Absolutely, yes, yes, and yes. But perhaps even more insidious is who is doing the rewriting. I can’t tell you how many times we’ve examined a new Bush environmental policy only to find that the language mirrors language requested by industry. From forest plans to pollution controls to the protection of endangered species, lobbyists for industry special interests are having tremendous influence in this administration. I believe we should expect our environmental protection laws to be written by people who actually want to protect the environment, not by those who want the protections removed so they can irrevocably destroy it.
How can the wolf-killing in Alaska be stopped? — Kim Kahl, Bend, Ore.
We too have been saddened and outraged by Alaska’s policy of aerial wolf killing. It’s an issue Defenders has been working on feverishly for a number of years. But right now, in Alaska, the political stars are aligned with those who support this policy. The governor, the state legislature, and the Board of Game are all proponents of aerial killing. We have significant questions about the science behind the policy and seriously question the legitimacy of the federal government ignoring what we believe is their oversight responsibility on this issue; but right now, Alaska is calling all the shots. I can tell you this: we’re not giving up. This issue continues to be one of our top conservation priorities and will be until it is stopped. Stay tuned.
Are you living in a remote area? If so, how do you reconcile this with your ideals? Almost everyone would like to live in the quiet of the forest and countryside, but that is the problem, isn’t it? — Jerry Broadbent, Bucoda, Wash.
It’s absolutely part of the problem. Many people want a place to get away from it all, which only swells the communities outside the cities, leading everyone to complain about sprawl and the loss of open spaces. It is a vicious cycle indeed. But I don’t think the fact that people want to live in remote areas — and believe me, my once-small town isn’t so remote anymore — is the major issue. I think it’s probably a factor of human nature we’ll never be able to totally influence or control. Proper advanced planning, thoughtful development, and personal responsibility — these are the keys to managing the ever-present human need for space with the dwindling amount of space available.
What do you think about this talk of the death of environmentalism? — Gary Desrochers, Easton, Penn.
As the old saying goes, reports of the death of environmentalism are premature. I know it’s a debate that has caused much hand-wringing in many corners of the country. It has, interestingly, actually re-energized many of the conservation-minded folks I know. I am fortunate to work with some of the great conservationists in the country today, and I only see redoubled efforts to educate, protect, and solve conservation challenges on the landscape.
