New legislation could amend the 40 year-old Endangered Species Act, forcing federal agencies to more openly disclose scientific evidence for or against protected species, the Craig Daily Press reported.

"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," Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., said at a meeting to discuss possible amendments as well as the status of Colorado's Greater Sage Grouse habitat, which has a small chance of gaining protection status by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.

It's difficult to say whether officially declaring a species endangered raises the standards of science or muddles them. Since protecting species can have all sorts of impacts -- including restricting development on protected lands -- groups whose interests are affected frequently contest federal rulings. Perhaps as a result, federal agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services haven't always been open about their evidence. Legally, however, they might not want to release information some landowners would consider proprietary.

"Transparency of process is important, and fair and open explanations of decisions can be valuable," Steven Courtney, associate at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, said in his testimony against the proposed amendments. "In some situations, complete transparency can be detrimental. Many landowners, for instance, regard information about wildlife on their lands to be proprietary. Full and transparent disclosure of such information could have significant financial impacts."

Those arguing for the new rules didn't necessarily agree with Courtney's reasoning.

"Frankly, I think it's a lame excuse to say, 'We're relying on other sources.' As soon as the agency gets its hands on its data and incorporates it into their reports, that's public data," said Kent Holsinger, a Denver attorney who testified in favor of the legislation.