Earlier this week the Union-Tribune published a front-page article that used the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's refusal to list the California spotted owl as an endangered species as a news hook to hit at the Bush administration for listing fewer species than previous administrations.

It's not until after the jump that you get a key piece of information:

In the case of the California spotted owl, the agency's Sacramento office said yesterday that federal protections weren't warranted because the bird's population is stable or increasing in its central territory in the Sierra Nevada. It did note a population dip in the San Bernardino Mountains, but said that was insignificant.

The article notes that the agency's efforts to protect endangered species have been hindered by chronic underfunding (read: pre-Bush II administration) and lawsuits by environmentalists demanding more protection for various species.

So why isn't this story about how the Bush administration is focusing limited resources on species that are truly endangered and not listing ones that are not? Well, because that doesn't fit the typical template that Republicans hate the environment.

The article is typical boilerplate, with environmentalists complaining that the Republican administration isn't doing enough to protect species and property-rights groups complaining that there are many species currently on the list that no longer need protection.

There is another unstated assumption behind the article. The idea that the number of listed species must continually grow. The idea of the Endangered Species Act was to protect species in danger of extinction so they can rebound. Yet, when the protection actually works and a species rebounds, environmentalists fight tooth and nail to prevent delisting when they should be applauding their success.