A House Natural Resources committee hearing took place in which four bills were presented that aim to amend the Endangered Species Act. These four pieces of legislation are considered vital as they would take transparency of agencies determining the species as threatened or endangered to another level.

Not only transparency factor would get a boost, but changes would also be witnessed in the legal process regarding the ESA.

"The lack of transparency and unwillingness of federal agencies to disclose scientific data used in endangered species listings calls into question the validity of the data", said Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo, at the hearing.

Tipton believes that the ESA is now more than four decades old and requires an update. There were people who were not in the favor of the four ESA bills. They were found saying that the legislation is not meant to protect species.

Moreover, they did not think the legislation mandated transparency on information that the agencies did not have permission to make public. But Kent Holsinger, who testified in the favor of the legislation found the statement to be a lame excuse.

He said once the agency includes its data in their reports then it becomes public data. Steven Courtney from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis said there is no doubt that transparency is important, but they also need to think about economical concerns.

Steven is of the belief that in certain situations, transparency can prove quite detrimental. Complete transparency can also have financial impacts. Tipton suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies working with the ESA should make their process clearer so that better decisions can be taken.