A bruising battle over reforming the nation's premier law for protecting endangered species is shaping up for the next Congress.

The issue is of particular importance to Wyoming and other Western states, where clashes between industry and environmentalists over protecting vulnerable species tend to be more common and more contentious.

Emboldened by their increased majority, House and Senate Republicans said they are optimistic that they can enact major changes to the Endangered Species Act, a goal that has eluded the GOP for more than a decade.

"I see this as one of the best opportunities we've had to achieve some common-sense reform, especially with the new makeup in the Senate," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif. "But we're not kidding ourselves that it's going to be easy."

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman of the subcommittee with oversight of the endangered-species law, have also said reform is a top priority for the 109th Congress.

U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., a member of Crapo's committee, has sponsored legislation to change the law for a number of years. He said the Bush administration was under such intense scrutiny from environmentalists during its first term that Endangered Species Act reform wasn't a top priority, but that could change during President Bush's second term.

"Environmentalists were so tough on the president and vice president that I think they were resistant to jump in and do something," Thomas said during an interview Monday in Casper. "As the president said, now he has earned a little political capital, and he's prepared to spend some of it."

However, Thomas said the biggest obstacle to reforming the law is the fact that it's of relatively little interest in much of the nation.

"A majority of states are not particularly interested in it - at least they don't have the experience with it that public-lands states do," he said.

'A Western voice'

This week, the Western Governors Association is hosting a "summit meeting" in San Diego to develop a legislative strategy for prodding Congress to make major changes to the act.

"The Western voice in these discussions is essential," said Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, chairman of the governors association. The Republican has made revamping the act to give states a greater voice in listing and land-management decisions the association's top priority.

Governors are anxiously awaiting a decision next month from Interior Secretary Gale Norton on whether to list the western sage grouse as endangered. Oil and gas drilling throughout Wyoming and other Rocky Mountain states could be hampered if the grouse is listed.

Also in Wyoming, pending removal of wolves and grizzly bears from federal protection - and state management of the animals once they're removed - have generated heated debate.

In New Mexico, a federal lawsuit recently pitted thirsty farmers and cities against the silvery minnow in a battle over water in the Rio Grande. In Oregon and Washington, farmers are struggling with restrictions on pesticides harmful to salmon and steelhead trout.

Broken or not?

Critics say the act is fundamentally "broken" and needs to be rewritten. Since the passage of the act three decades ago, only 14 species have been removed from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's list of endangered and threatened species because they have recovered to healthy population levels.

Supporters of the act argue that the law has been a success despite constant lawsuits prodding the wildlife service to put new species on the lists and to map out areas of "critical habitat" necessary to sustain the 1,264 animals and plants on the list.

"What (critics) fail to acknowledge is the Endangered Species Act has had an amazing rate of success in preventing species from going extinct," said John Kostyack, senior counsel for the National Wildlife Federation.

"We have hundreds of species that would not be around today if not for the Endangered Species Act," Kostyack said. "Success stories like the whooping crane and the bald eagle and the black-footed ferret are all things we should celebrate and build upon."

Thomas said he would like to see the law changed to require more scientific data for species to be given federal protection.

He also favors a requirement for specific recovery plans when an animal is listed. The current situation with grizzly bears - whose numbers are high enough to warrant "delisting," but who remain on the "threatened" list because of other issues - shows that such a change is warranted, Thomas said.

"None of us is trying to do away with the Endangered Species Act," he said. "We just want to make it work."

Carrot or stick?

Environmentalists said they fear Republican lawmakers are more inclined to try to gut species protections to appease their allies in industry than to craft changes that will enhance species survival.

"There are some changes that are appropriate to be made," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife and a former Fish and Wildlife Service director. "The question is whether you can navigate appropriate changes that advance species conservation in this political climate."

A key reason for the conflict is that about 80 percent of endangered species have most of their habitat on private land, placing the federal government in the position of restricting how private landowners use their property, said Utah State University professor Randy Simmons, an expert on the Endangered Species Act who served in the Reagan administration.

"The trick is how do we regulate so that private landowners are willing to protect species," Simmons said.

Most scientists agree that the chief reason plants and animals become extinct is destruction of the environments, or "critical habitat," that they need to survive. Finding creative ways to compensate property owners for managing land in ways that are hospitable to endangered species could significantly reduce the conflicts, Simmons said.

For example, an environmental group in the Midwest pays farmers to preserve wetlands for ducks and gives the farmers a bonus if they take measures that increase the survival of fledglings.

In the northern Rockies, Defenders of Wildlife has a program that compensates ranchers for sheep and cattle lost to wolves reintroduced to the region.

Clark said she agrees that the act "needs more carrot," but she added that endangered species can't be protected "just by giving money away" - there has to be a "stick" the government can use when economic pressures driving habitat destruction are greater than any compensation the government could reasonably make.