Comment from John Public

While I agree that there should be a mechanism in place to support the will of the people--in this case, grass-roots efforts to add sanctuaries in new places--I am somewhat perplexed at how this will help existing sanctuaries, which are struggling under massive cuts, as are many government agencies. It appears that the existing sanctuaries are being marginalized. The evidence is a declining budget over the last several years, reductions in staff and, in general, an lack of relevance. Partners are working hard to fill in these gaps, but it is not enough. In addition to adding new sites, there should be a stronger effort to support the existing sites. It is a shame that, as a tax payer, I am watching an important program languish. Sanctuaries have such potential, yet I am not sure it is being utilized. Those of us that want the sanctuary program to succeed are constantly confronted by sanctuary programs that do not appear to support conservation of resources based on sound scientific data. Look inside first, clean up the shop, be more strategic with what is already in place, and then allocate some resources to adding new sites as they arise. And support those additions that have strong local support and resources that can be devoted to adding a site, not further draining away the few that are still left at the existing sites. In summary, I support re-establishing the sanctuary nomination process, but with these caveats: --not at the expense of existing sites --only after existing sites have increased funding from Congress and the President --and only when external resources at the proposed new site are in place and can fund the effort (i.e. strong partnerships, as from NGOs, commercial interests, etc.)