Now
Fair
25°
High
32°
Low
20°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Testifiers bash plan to designate critical habitat for tiger beetle

Comments 35 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY ALGIS J. LAUKAITIS / Lincoln Journal Star

Tuesday, Jul 01, 2008 - 08:32:41 pm CDT



It was a tough night for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the endangered Salt Creek tiger beetle.

At a public hearing Tuesday evening in Lincoln, a half dozen speakers blasted the federal agency and its plans to spend millions of dollars to try and save the species from extinction.

Story Photo
This 2001 file photo shows a Salt Creek Tiger Beetle in the saline wetlands near Little Salt Creek. (LJS File)

“This is an insect,” said Harry Muhlbach, who lives north of Lincoln. “I think this ought to be dropped now. It’s not responsible. It’s got to be let go. We got young kids who think the tiger beetle is more important than their own survival.”

The USFWS is proposing to designate 1,795 acres in Lancaster and Saunders counties as critical habitat for the beetle. These are geographic areas made up of mostly wetlands that the federal agency considers essential to the continued survival of the insect.

 Most of the remaining tiger beetle population is found along the Little Salt Creek north of Lincoln and Rock Creek, south of  Ceresco. The insect prefers to live and hunt in rare salt flats that are now mostly gone.

 Due mostly to development and changes in hydrology, the tiger beetle population numbers have been steadily in decline. Last year, surveys showed a total population of 263 beetles. This year  less than 100 were counted, USFWS biologist Bob Harms told an audience of about 40 people who attended the public hearing. The hearing was recessed after an hour and no one spoke in support of the proposal.

 Harms said the 1,795 acres is just a “starting point” and the figure may go up or down, based on the information received in the coming months. A final ruling on acres is expected in December.

 Considered one of the rarest insects in the United States, the Salt Creek tiger beetle received federal protection under the Endangered Species Act in October 2005. The agency estimates that the potential economic costs to protect the species could be between $18.6 million and $23.1 million over the next 20 years.

 Longtime Lincoln developer Joe Hampton told the agency that the money could be put to better use, like flood protection.

“From my perspective, are we talking about $1.3 to $2 million a year to preserve 263 critters that contribute little or nothing to the well-being of this community?” Hampton asked.

 Jack Nagel, who farms near Davey and owns land in Saunders County,  said he is against spending more money on the beetle. He said this insect has not been able to make it on its own and should go the way of the woolly mammoth.

“The tiger beetle is vulnerable like many creatures on this planet,” Nagel said.

 He said it would be different if the Salt Creek tiger beetle were the last such insect on Earth, but he checked and there are about 2,500 tiger species worldwide.

Gary Hellerich, speaking on behalf of the Lancaster County Farm Bureau, said the federal listing already affords the beetle enough protection and any further help should come from the private sector and voluntary partnerships.

“It’s not fiscally responsible to landowners and taxpayers in Lancaster County to spend that amount of money to protect the small number of beetles that remain,” he said.

Hellerich calculated that based on last year’s population of 263, the amount of money spent over 20 years to protect each insect would amount to about $88,000. He said his organization supports taking no action and encourages the federal agency to forego its critical habitat designation.

Doug Nagel, a farmer and the son of Jack Nagel, said the $20 million should be spent on curing heart disease or paying down the national debt.

“Millions of dollars will be spent to no avail,” he said. “I think we need a basic reality check when it comes to the beetle. It won’t be saved. It will go down in history as another failure of the Endangered Species Act.”

Reach Algis J. Laukaitis at 402-473-7243 or alaukaitis@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
VW wrote on July 1, 2008 3:11 pm:
" Save the bettle! "

 tom b wrote on July 1, 2008 3:25 pm:
" annual costs of 1.3 to 2 million dollars...for what!!! "

 no way wrote on July 1, 2008 3:32 pm:
" $20+ million for a bug?!?!?! let it go already!!! Survival of the fittest. Sometimes animals just are not meant to coninue, such as dinosaurs. I bet you wouldn't see environmentalists all gung ho about keeping there habitat intact if they lived today.

But if so... my recommendation were to put the velocoraptor and tyranasaurus rex's habitats where environmentalists lived that wanted to save them. Then we'll see if the "endangered" animal felt like keepin the bug (aka human) around. "

 MMcK wrote on July 1, 2008 3:44 pm:
" I could really use a map of the area you're talking about here. "

 Tiffany I wrote on July 1, 2008 3:50 pm:
" I think this is the biggest waste of tax dollars money I have every heard of. Why don't we worry about all of the kids in the foster care system ,there is over 6,000 kids in the foster care system as of 2008. Who cares about the beetle!! Why don't we worry about something more important!! "

 Gary wrote on July 1, 2008 3:55 pm:
" What is the purpose of the bug, save a couple and put them in a zoo and save about 2 million dollars, this is the biggest waste of money I have ever heard, its a stupid bug! "

 Fatso wrote on July 1, 2008 3:56 pm:
" You have to be kidding me to spend millions of dollars on bugs when there are people starving and homeless in our community. Who's the over paid braniac that thought of this? "

 Come on wrote on July 1, 2008 4:00 pm:
" Is 263 bugs even a viable breeding population? Enough is enough. Other people here have commented on the waste of this kind of money, and they're right. Foster kids, battered women, disaster relief... there is a HUGE list of things we could better spend $20 million on over the next two decades. Enough with this bug already. "

 Joe wrote on July 1, 2008 4:02 pm:
" Oh my god. It is a stinking bug. People treat insects with more dignity than people. "

 Cole wrote on July 1, 2008 4:44 pm:
" I won't be as crass as some, but I don't get it either. Someone once pointed out to me that all of this business of endangered species is based on visibility. The only reason we care about pandas and beetles is because we can see them. There are probably thousands of species in the air, land and water that are born and go extinct every day. The deep sea, micro-organisms, insects, you name it. But the only things we go ga-ga over are cute things and things someone tells us are rare that are close to us. The sandhill crane comes to mind - not a particularly attractive bird, but people come out in droves.

Don't get me wrong, it would be great if we could be as life-affirming as possible, but we're kidding ourselves by spending millions to save a beetle when we probably obliterate a one-of-a-kind life form every time we take step. "

 Ted Haubrich wrote on July 1, 2008 5:19 pm:
" It's not that it would cost two million to save the beetle, it won't really cost much of anything. It's $2 million in "potential economic loss" In other words some land developer could possibly make that much money by building a gas station or something, but if the wetlands are set aside that developer can no longer build his gas station and he doesn't make his $2 million. And of course is the developer doensn't make $2 million the city can't tax it. "COST is not the same as POTENTIAL ECONOMIC LOSS. "

 this has to be wrote on July 1, 2008 5:34 pm:
" flat out the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Roughly amounts to about 76 thousand dollars per bug based on the current population. But hey, its only money "

 ted wrote on July 1, 2008 5:34 pm:
" Husband: Are we free to have a garage sale next weekend?
Wife: No, next weekend's booked
Husband: but the potential economic loss of not having a garage sale next weeking is $50 ot $100.
Children: Why spend $100 not having a garage sale that's a waste of money!

Sound kinda stupid? "

 Aemelia wrote on July 1, 2008 5:37 pm:
" It is very unlikely to be money from a source that could be rerouted to kids or the homeless anyway. The money likely comes from federal grants just for endangered animals.

Right or wrong it is still the most likely reality. "

 Government waste wrote on July 1, 2008 6:00 pm:
" Won't it be wonderful when the last tiger beetle dies!!!! "

 dewboy wrote on July 1, 2008 8:54 pm:
" The lands that are occupied by the Tiger Beetle should not have been developed in the first place. Most of the area is either floodplain OR saline wetlands If Hampton is so worried about floodplains WHY does he and his son build in the floodplains all the time "

 JT wrote on July 1, 2008 9:15 pm:
" We shouldn't have built in floodplains in the first place, that was really dumb. I assume all of you complaining about $20 million are absolutely frothing at the mouth at the fact that we're spending $256 million a day in Iraq. Remember, God created the "creeping things" before he created man. "

 money for Nebraska wrote on July 1, 2008 9:22 pm:
" Sure, this all seems pretty stupid. But the money is Federal money that has been earmarked for the endangered species act, so if it doesn't come into Lancaster County it'll go to California, or Vermont, or somewhere else. No one is stealing land, taking money from the children, or sending jobs to Mexico. The gov't money is going to the landowners to buy the land, the landscaping crews or whoever to renovate the land, and to UNL to study the bug. Think about where the money will go, not where it came from. "

 whatever wrote on July 1, 2008 9:52 pm:
" There is plenty of land to develop with facilitating the extinction of a species GOD put on this Earth. This species indeed is vulnerable like many species, say the family farmer, that should go the way of the wooly mammoth. In all seriousness we certainly don't want the family farmer to become extinct but it's attitudes like Mr. Nagels' that I find amusing. He has absolutely no clue that he is a player in his own way of lifes extinction. A very shortsighted and shallow point of view that he and many others carry that will destroy them. And by the way that's part of the plan. "

 Farmer wrote on July 1, 2008 10:08 pm:
" Save the beetle, and save the Farm Bureau and their 100 actual farmer members in Nebraska, all relics of the past. "

 Galen wrote on July 1, 2008 10:40 pm:
" Just plain STUPID. I'm glad that no one at the meeting was dumb enough to speak FOR this project. It doesn't matter that the "money will go somewhere sles". It doesn't NEED to be spent here. "

 dennis wrote on July 1, 2008 11:19 pm:
" the only reason certain people are not in favor of saving the little bug is so they(big business) can get there hands on it to build more unwanted shopping malls or condos on the land,if you want to talk about wasting fed. money then the people should complain to wash.about wasting billons in iraq for nothing also,and that doesn't count even the lives wasted. "

 Hey Whatever wrote on July 1, 2008 11:22 pm:
" I'm with you. I was going to post....but your post says it all. The beetle is important to me.....way more so than all the developers in the world. "

 Government Pork wrote on July 1, 2008 11:37 pm:
" This is the same Federal Gov't. that spent money in the '80s
researching ketchup and why it came out of bottles so slowly.

Leave it to our government to find ways to waste money on things that will never make one bit of difference. If we save all 263 Tiger Beeetles will the price of a barrel of crude oil come down, will Al Queda behave, will everyone at the People's City Mission have their life turned around, will hungry people have enough to eat??? Of course not! The damn beetle doesn't matter! Spend time, money and energy on things that make a difference! "

 Beetle wrote on July 2, 2008 12:37 am:
" Developers never seem to have enough land to exploit. We can thank developers and their cohorts in the mortgage business for the sub prime debacle. That sure has had an impact on the nation. Over development can be a problem. Take a look at the historic Brandies building in Omaha if you want another developer debacle, that is a story we need not go into. Give the scientists a chance, be innovative. Isn’t that a part of the spirit of why the state fair, another relic, will be moved? "

 Sue wrote on July 2, 2008 12:41 am:
" I am a Lincoln resident and I strongly support all attempts to save the Salt Creek tiger beetle and its habitat. First, it's just the right thing to do. Beyond that, every indigenous creature in an area affects the ecology of the place. If it dies out, there will be an unknown ripple effect that impacts other animals and the whole ecology of the place where it lives. We should not stand idly by. "

 DD wrote on July 2, 2008 6:33 am:
" Some of you are missing the point. Read the Endangered Species Act. Any endangered species, that is non-migratory in nature, is only protected on Federally owned lands, unless the USFW can get a "critical habitat" designation on private land. This is nothing more than the USFW trying to accert their power on private property. "

 Jake wrote on July 2, 2008 8:52 am:
" Will some crop duster in Northern Lancaster county please bring vigilante justice now and fly over the small habitat with an insecticide? At $10 an acre for the airplane/pilot and roughly $3 for the insecticide we can solve this today roughly cheaply and quickly. Unlike paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to the USFWS reps for their continued research on the area. I'm guessing over a million has already been spent for these clowns. Why don't they get called out by name who were representing the USFWS??? They are public officials getting paid with tax dollars. They presented this idea and should be accounted for in print for their quotes. "

 sallie wrote on July 2, 2008 9:37 am:
" If given a choice between 263 beetles or 200 some developers - I'd say save the beetles... "

 Mathew Brust wrote on July 2, 2008 9:40 am:
" I think what people need to realize is that we are not alone on this planet and we have altered the majority of the land surface to our use alone. The simple fact is that there are simply too many human beings on the earth. We are a greedy species. Indeed, the beetle contributes nothing to our economy, indeed if it vanished few are likely to notice. But this is merely a symptom of a much larger problem. When Lincoln was first founded the salt marshes were an economic draw; health spas and whatnot. Now the salt marshes are seen as "in our way".

Unfortunately as both a conservationist and agriculturalist I see the Endangered Species Act as being somewhat outdated and not entirely applicable to insects. An enormous amount of money would be saved by protecting the habitat rather than each individual species as habitat protection would protect a whole suite of threatened species. Here I can speak a word of warning as some of my research suggestes you may see an endangered grasshopper in these salt marshes as well very soon.

Those of you who look only at the dollar signs are ignorant. The money being used has long since been specifically set aside for these sorts of things, as money for Nebraska has pointed out. One can say the species is weak and deserves to vanish, but before we destroyed most of its habitat it was not weak, it only had a limited distribution. The bottom line is that as human population increases, this phenomenon will become commonplace. I think Hurricane Katrina presents an excellent example here. There are so many of us that we are moving into areas that we should not live. We can whine to the insurance companies after the fact, but if I were them I would say "Talk to the hand". At current rates of human population increase it is likely that within 50 years times like these we seem like the good ole' days. This is only the beginning of where things are going. One can say the same thing about so many other issues; the water wars of the Western United States, grain prices, and whatnot. "

 Wetlands wrote on July 2, 2008 11:45 am:
" Last time I checked, wetlands and floodplains aren't the best places to build ANYWAY. Why doesn't Hampton try building in places that are suitable to begin with, and then no one has to worry about the tiger beetle's habitat? And since it appears that most people missed the point, it's not just about the tiger beetle here. The saline wetlands of eastern Nebraska are one-of-a-kind ecosystems that are still being studied extensively. We don't yet KNOW the ramifications of having them or not having them, and it's not just about the tiger beetle. From an ecological perspective, it's a lucky thing that an endangered species turned up in those wetlands.. maybe that'll buy us some more time. It's beyond me how anyone can support development right now at all- because it's not like we need any more shopping centers and we certainly don't need any more apartment buildings or houses when the market is FULL of houses that aren't sold and apartments that aren't rented. Maybe this is an opportunity for all of us to take a look at ourselves and realize that development-development-development isn't the best route anyway, dollar signs or not. "Just a bug?" Didn't anyone stop to think about what that particular bug eats, what it helps to survive, how intricate a role it might play in a local ecosystem? No, we'd rather just plow right over all of it and have another WalMart, right? "

 SY wrote on July 2, 2008 3:04 pm:
" Matt Brust has things essentially correct about "the" tiger beetle. (You'd think he was some sort of expert on them or something.) Remember, the beetle is merely one small aspect of what's being protected by setting aside conservation land. It is the excuse to save a habitat, because a species is easier to give protected areas than its habitat. As for those who think this is all about a bug, remember that there is more to this world than manicured lawns and pavement. "

 Scott wrote on July 2, 2008 3:08 pm:
" Thank you, Matthew Brust and other conservationists for saying what needed to be said. I'm glad that there's some reasonable Nebraskans left. "

 uhoh wrote on July 2, 2008 3:58 pm:
" Didn't the actual paper say there are only about 100 of them beetles left not 263. There now we narrowed it down, if we wait till next year to do this it might be down to 50. So do as council always does and delay the decision then delay it again. Opps they are all gone no more endangered species. So 23 million divided by 100 equals 230,000 each. Give me that and i'll round them up and keep them safe. "

 Jake wrote on July 2, 2008 4:39 pm:
" I'm simply not in favor of taking 1800+ acres off the tax rolls for lancaster county. The only way I can see this area being protected is if in some way they can designate this area a wildlife preserve/park where it can also be used as a future recreation area surrounding it (since it is supposedly in salt flats/floodplain. That is the only way that one can convince the public to protect the area. They won't go for it if you want it protected simply for a bug, obviously that approach didn't work. The USFS must attach some type of park system to this area where it will be an area for people to visit, relax and enjoy in the future while lincoln and Omaha continue to grow together in a metro area.

Just saving a beetle just doesn't fly for $2 million a year. "

Ads by Yahoo!