16 



Prior to the withdrawal notice, IIGE had been informed of the 

 panel's meeting only by rumor and that it was, indeed, a National Academy 

 of Sciences panel (letter to FWS dated June 11, 1980). They expressed 

 concern since "various reports have labeled the selection of the panel 

 members as biased." 



A number of scientists and conservationists took strong issue with 

 the FWS' decision to withdraw the listing. However, FWS maintained 

 almost verbatim the reasons outlined in Smith's June 11 memorandum 

 although they did not represent the opinions of the panel (J. Berry, 

 J. Christiansen, C. Ernst, J. Iverson, pens. comm.). In a letter 

 dated July 11, 1980, to L. Regenstein, FWS conveyed the reasons for 

 the panel's deliberations ("...there are those who questioned our ability 

 to render an impartial decision concerning the listing of this species."). 

 Only Monsanto questioned the objectivity of the FWS throughout the two 

 years of deliberation. 



After the withdrawal notice, the Illinois mud turtle question subsided 

 since it was clear that the subspecies' would not be listed formally as en- 

 dangered. However, on December 8, 1981, at the oversight hearings on the 

 reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act before the U.S. Senate Environ- 

 ment and Public Works Committee, S. Boynton, in criticizing the Act, 

 again chastised the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its proposal of the 

 Illinois mud turtle 3 1/2 years previous, stating that "those responsible in 

 the Office of Endangered Species had not done a credible job...." In a . 

 letter dated January 8, 1982, Mr. Boynton again stated that there were insuf- 

 ficient data to support the original proposal; reviewed Monsanto's management 

 plan; restated the unreviewed findings of LGL, including allegations that 

 electrophoretic work conclusively demonstrated that K_. f. spooneri was not a 

 subspecies and that the results had been published in "7ey scientific jour- 

 nals;" and that a panel of the National Academy of Sciences stated that the 

 information on which FWS based its original proposal was weak and inadequate, 

 thus indicating an "indictment" of FWS. This information was taken from a 

 booklet published by Monsanto (Anon., undated), a copy of which he supplied 

 to the Committee. In a letter dated January 8, 1982, to Senator John Chafee, 

 Chairman of the Committee, E. C. Spurrier of Monsanto stated that Mr. Boynton 's 

 testimony was "a statement of the facts." The controversy continues. 



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 



There is a current feeling within certain segments of industry that 

 environmental regulations are a luxury in a society facing economic problems. 

 As such, any regulation that is deemed to provide stricter oversight of com- 

 pany activities is automatically opposed. Such is perhaps the case with Mon- 

 santo and the proposed listing of the Illinois mud turtle although it is 

 impossible to ascertain motives. Certainly, the listing of the subspecies 

 would not have seriously affected the operations of the Muscatine plant. 

 FWS directed repeated inquiries to Monsanto requesting specific economic 

 impacts but Monsanto only responded by indicating additional review would 



