Endangered Species Act, Research Paper Example

Should the Endangered Species Act Be Strengthened?

Introduced in 1973, the Endangered Species Act was legislation passed with the intent of saving a number of critical animal, plant and bird species from the brink of extinction.  Although hardly perfect, it was the best attempt up to that time to protect America’s natural resources from one of the greatest mass extinctions the world has ever seen.  Although it is true that extinction happens all the time, as nature is continuously evolving, this current extinction period is unique because it marks the first time that extinction of this caliber has occurred directly because of man.  “What is new is that the current rate of human-induced extinction appears far higher than would be implied by the past fossil records.  Conservative estimates of global rates of extinction for various groups of species vary from 10 to 1,000 times the natural rates that would currently prevail.” (Brown and Shogren 1998) This worries many scientists because of the unknown repercussions of species loss and how it will affect both human life and the life of the planet.  The Endangered Species Act has caused a great amount of controversy because it appeals to people on a number of emotional levels. The ESA is touted by some environmentalists to be an effective, positive and successful piece of legislature, while other environmentalists say that it is not tough enough, and needs to be strengthened.  Then there are the opponents, who charge that the ESA places too much burden on private land owners, and that the Act as is inhibits economic growth without proper scientific reason.  There are some that say the ESA has failed entirely and an entirely new set of legislation needs to be created.  Everyone tends to agree that protecting the environment and biological diversity is important. However, it is more difficult to reconcile the two sides, balancing species and habitat protection with property rights and personal freedom.  In order for a more balanced and successful conservation act to be passed, it will be necessary for scientists and biologists to provide a new framework on the dynamic of species conservation and for the economic impact to be more fairly balanced between the Federal and State governments and the rights and freedoms of individual property owners.

The current rate of species extinction has many people concerned for a number of reasons.  Extinction not only threatens the natural world in terms of biodiversity for its aesthetic and intrinsic values, it also threatens industry that is dependent on it, such as the fishing industry.  “Today, human activities are an important cause of species loss mostly because humans destroy or alter habitat bust also because of hunting (including commercial fishing), the introduction of foreign species as novel competitors, and the introduction of diseases.” (Easton 2008) The Endangered Species Act was enacted to protect the planets natural resources for future generations.  However, its successfulness has been debated.  Proponents say that the ESA has been very successful in bringing back targeted species from the brink of extinction.

Critics of the ESA consistently point out the single species approach as being one of the main flaws of the Act.  Though proponents point out the fact that high profile animals, such as the gray wolf and the bald eagle, both of which whose populations had reached a critical at the time the ESA was approved, have been so successfully impacted by the ESA that these animals have actually been removed from the list.   Though ESA has proven successful in the past by barring “construction projects that would further threaten endangered species” (Easton 2008) its main emphasis continues to be on single species conservation.  One of the main issues that biologists and ecologists have with this approach is that it is impossible for a species to recover, and maintain it population, if sufficient habitat is not available to support it.  “Legal experts as well as biologists have criticized the Act’s single-species approach to biodiversity conservation.  This approach has been a traditional element of conservation regulations due to the historical fact that overhunting and other forms of direct exploitation depleted or extirpated many species; however, today species face greater threats due to habitat reduction, making ecosystem conservation preferable to single-species protection.”  (Rohlf 1991) Habitat conservation has many benefits besides protecting the targeted species, as well.  Other non-threatened species will also benefit by having habitat protected, and will not be faced with population reductions. Protecting habitat also benefits humans by, for example, maintaining critical watersheds which are essential to clean and fresh drinking water.

Although the ESA has had success in the past with habitat protection by using it to protect key stone species, efforts are hindered by politics.  Although not an official policy of the Act, it often occurs that high-profile species, including mammals and birds, are often favored above species that are not as glamorous species, such as insects, amphibians and plants.  This is not what the Act endorses, as Rohlf (1991) explains that even a conference committee report noted that protected species “must be viewed in terms of their relationship to the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element (House of Representatives 1982). Even though both science and policy makers both agree that habitat conservation should be the priority of conservation efforts, it is still the high profile species that act as spokesmen for the Act.

Since the ESA has been successful in the past, proponents claim, it is necessary now for the legislation to be taken to the next step, by strengthening the act and empowering the federal government with more power to protect species over private industry and landowner rights.  In his argument, John Kostyack (Easton 2008) lists the benefits the ESA has brought to species through its protection.  He states that “Over 98% of species ever protected by the Act remain on the planet today.  Of the listed species whose condition is known, 68% are stable or improving and 32% are declining.  The longer a species enjoys the ESA’s protection, the more likely its condition will stabilize or improve.” (Easton 2008).  These numbers seem to indicate an overwhelmingly positive effect due to the ESA.  However, there is another side.

Data and numbers are tricky because they can be manipulated into telling two conflicting stories.  Opponents use the same numbers as proponents but a different outcome is concluded.  In the history of the ESA, only 13 species have ever been removed from the endangered species rate, leading opponents of the law to state that the ESA has only a 1% success rate, which seems small and unsubstantial and far from successful.  “In the seventeen years since the passage of the Act in 1973, only a handful of protected species have recovered to the point where they no longer face extinction.  Meanwhile, estimates that human actions extirpate 17,500 species each year.” (Rohlf 1991) The factors for the ESA’s lack of success include politics and economics.  Due to this low success rate, opponents claim, and the stress the law puts on private landowners, the law needs drastic revision and overhaul.  Despite the fact that ESA proponents see success in the numbers, opponents see failure and need for change.

Whether or not the ESA has been successful in protecting animals, many opponents of the Act cite the need for overhaul based on the basic economics of the Act.  There are many shortcomings in this area, including a major lack of funding to properly protect all of the animals on the list.  “The funds available to preserve species in the United States are clearly inadequate for the task.  Of the 1, 104 species in the United States listed as threatened (228) or endangered (876) as of July 1997, slightly over 40% have approved recovery plans.”  Opponents of the Act claim that most of the economic burden is placed on private land owners, who are expected to foot the bill for conservation.

Landowners are often critical of the ESA because of the fact that it infringes on property rights and personal freedoms.  It is a “prohibitive policy and represents and extreme form of government intervention.” (Brown and Shogren 1998)  The main reason for the Act being affecting private landowners so intently is that “about 90% of the nearly 1,100 species of plants and animals listed as endangered or threatened under the Act are found on private land.  The combination of broad benefits and concentrated costs can fan political firestorms, and many landowners complain that the costs of complying with the Act are too high.” (Brown and Shogren 1998) Landowners would be much more willing to comply with the Act if there were monetary incentives offered instead of just heavy fines for non-compliance.  The Act is supposed to benefit all Americans, so cost for the Act should be spread about more evenly as well.

The Endangered Species Act may need some revision, advocates maintain, yet in perspective it has been successful.  It has fulfilled a necessary purpose, and that is to protect species that otherwise might have been extinct by now.  One of the most prominent success stories of the ESA is the bald eagle.  According to John Kostyack (Easton 2008), the bald eagle, the symbol of the United States, was down to fewer than 500 breeding pairs in the 1960’s due to the misuse of DDT.  Thanks to the federal ban on DDT in 1972 and the implementation of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, the number of breeding pairs today is over 7,600 pairs.  Success stories such as with the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the gray wolf, the whooping crane and the Florida panther lead advocates say that the cost of maintaining biodiversity should not matter, since a price cannot be put on it.

However successful the ESA may be and have been in the past, there is always room for improvement. One of the problems with the ESA is the amount of time it takes in order for a species to be put on the list.  “Listing a new species usually takes years. Concerned ecologists or biologists may petition to put a species on the list of endangered, threatened or vulnerable species; they must then produce data and documents to prove that the species is at risk.” (Cunningham and Cunningham 2008)  The data must then be reviewed and approved, a process that can take years.  The process is slowed by various factors, including funding and politics.  “At least 18 species have gone extinct since being nominated for protection.” (Cunningham and Cunningham 2008)  In order for the ESA to be more successful in preventing species extinction, adequate funding is essential.  If the right amount of funds were appropriated by congress to meet the needs of all the species either currently on the list or backlogged, then the issues regarding the ESA could immediately be solved.

It is obvious that there is room for improvement in the ESA, but the fact remains that nothing has been as successful in protecting America’s valuable wildlife and habitat.  Without the ESA, America today could be a much more naturally impoverished region, since who knows if species such as the bald eagle and the Florida panther would be alive in the wild today without the ESA.  It is obvious that most people are in agreement that wildlife should be protected, the argument remains on two issues.  One is who should pay the price for conservation, the federal government or the private landowners.  The second is the biology and ecology of the Act needs to be revised using the best modern day science and understanding of conservation.  The Act as it is today remains more of an emergency action for critical species.   John Kostyack (Easton 2008) offers his insight into future legislation that would “implement Recovery Implementation Plans to set forth the specific actions, timetables, and funding needed for that agency to help achieve the recovery goals set forth in the recovery plan.” Funding, of course, continues to be a major part of the ESA and is necessary for any part of the Act to be successfully implemented. Federal funding must be a main priority if in the future the Act is to be more successful than it has been in the past.  Good intentions only go so far, money does the rest.

References

Brown, Gardner M. Jr, Shogren, Jason F. (1998) Economics of the Endangered Species Act.  Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(3): 3-20. http://www.rau.ro/intranet/JEP/1998/1203/12030003.pdf

Cunningham, William P., Cunningham, Mary Ann. (2008) Principles of environmental science: Inquiry and Applications. McGraw Hill.

Doremus, Holly. (1997) Listing decisions under the endangered species act:  Why better science isn’t always better policy.  Washington University Law Quarterly 75(3). Web. Retrieved from http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/75-3/753-1.html

Easton, Thomas. (2008) Environmental issues: Taking sides- clashing views on environmental issues. McGraw-Hill and Dushkin.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries: Office of Protected Resources.  Endangered Species Act.  Web. 26 May, 2010 from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/

Rohlf, Daniel J. (1991) Six biological reasons why the endangered species act doesn’t work and what to do about it.  Conservation Biology 5(3): 273-282. http://ww2.coastal.edu/jjhutche/BIO484/pdfs/Rohlf%201991%20Cons%20Bio%206%20bio%20reasons%20why%20the%20ESA%20does%20not%20work%20and%20what%20to%20do%20about%20it.pdf

Tear, Timothy H., Scott, J. Michael, Hayward, Patricia H., Griffith, Brad. (1995) Recovery plans and the endangered species act: Are criticisms supported by data? Conservation Biology, 9(1): 182-195 http://www.rw.ttu.edu/2302_PHILLIPS/Debatearticles/Sp_2008_debates/ESAcon.pdf