Yes

by J.B. Doyle

Created on: August 03, 2010   Last Updated: May 13, 2011

The Endangered Species Act was approved in December of 1973 and signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon. The new law repealed the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. A few provisions of new the act included promotion of the listing of endangered species, setting laws against the theft and sale of endangered species, and established grants to states who maintained programs for these species. (“Endangered Species…”, n.d.) The law, although effective, still has its detractors. In the following paragraphs, I will list arguments for and against strengthening of the Endangered Species Act.

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, species in decline are protected whether or not they have a direct use for human beings (Cunningham & Cunningham, p. 119). In other words, if humans can not use a species for food, shelter, or clothing, or if the species does not have a recognized positive impact on human beings, the species will still be protected. According to the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources, about 1,950 species are currently on the Endangered Species list. Of those, 1,375 exist partly or fully in the United States. While not many have been removed from the list, many of the species listed have increased in population (“Endangered Species Act (ESA)”, n.d.).

The value of saving species from extinction can be hard to calculate in financial or other terms. The values of some species are obvious for their direct importance to humans for uses such as food or for medicinal purposes. Although in many cases we may not be able to see a direct benefit in preserving the population of certain species, they help maintain ecosystems which contain other species that are of direct use. Common sense tells us that these ecosystems are valuable in ways that we may not consider, such as added income to local economies via tourists who are nature enthusiasts or  summer campers. Indeed, the very term ‘value’ is open to different interpretations and measurements depending on the assessing individual’s own outlook.

Two agencies are responsible for enforcing the regulations of the Endangered Species act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service both keep up the Endangered species list and review petitions requesting that certain plants or animals be considered for the list. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service looks after species on land and in freshwater areas, while the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fishery Services watches over marine species and those that live in the ocean but spawn in freshwater (“Endangered Species Act (ESA)”, n.d.).

Both environmentalists and those who oppose the laws take issue with the amount of time involved in recovering species-environmentalists do not believe timelines are long enough, while opponents believe the time involved is indulgent. The process of declaring a species endangered or threatened is a long one involving data collection and documentation, and the journey undertaken to recover a species is long and often controversial (Cunningham & Cunningham, p. 119). Environmentalists believe that the laws aren’t aggressive or strong enough, and those who oppose the ESA believe that the amount of money invested on preserving species isn’t getting a worthwhile return. Results of the progress of the ESA can be difficult to measure. Many people do not take into account all results that lie in between full recovery and extinction, so the numbers they use to argue the subject are invalid (Abbitt & Scott, 2001).

The Endangered Species Act has three categories for organisms that need protection. Vulnerable species are organisms that are rare or have diminished local numbers due to human activities. If humans have eliminated the majority of their habitats, or have in other ways affected the number negatively, the species are considered vulnerable. Threatened species are believed to be in danger of becoming extinct, although the threat has not yet been determined imminent. Endangered species are those that are approaching extinction at a rapid rate, and will die out if action is not taken. Once the organisms are placed on one of these lists, a recovery plan is developed (Cunningham & Cunningham, p. 119).

Varied circumstances put plants and animals at risk of extinction. Sometimes the causes are natural, due to evolution or other natural causes. Some organisms adapt to their environment by a genetic change. Certain genetic differences are passed from generation to generation. The old species will die out and the new one will take its place (Cunningham & Cunningham, p. 50). However, sometimes the danger takes the form of the human race. Human activities such as fishing, hunting, pollutants, and the destruction of natural habitats have wiped out or caused serious drops in the populations of numerous organisms.

Some opponents of the Endangered Species Act believe human needs have priority over the needs of endangered plants and animals. Private property rights sometimes are affected by ESA laws; certain species may exist in a natural habitat that is privately owned. Protecting numerous species and the habitats in which they dwell sometimes places limitations on human activities in an area. Fishing, hunting, farming, and other activities are severely limited or completely forbidden in protected habitats. Wood, water, and other resources may only be used in limited quantities or not at all.

Proponents of the ESA contend that many organisms provide benefits to mankind, even if we do not yet recognize those benefits. When a species becomes endangered, often times they cannot be collected for medicinal use. One Interpol operation shut down an operation illegally selling traditional medicines that used endangered animals and plants (Maher, 2009). If certain species become extinct, we may lose the ability to treat a large variety of illnesses and diseases. For example, the jaborandi tree from northern Brazil is used in the manufacture of pilocarpine, which is used to combat glaucoma; other uses for the plant include its incorporation in medications for rheumatism and pleurisy (King, 1992).

The school of neoclassical economics believes in the concept that although natural resources are important, they are not the most important aspect of an economy. They believe that innovations can be made to find substitutes for resources that become scarce. The idea is that all resources are able to be interchanged or replaced with other resources. Neoclassical economists believe that resources such as labor, experience, and knowledge trump natural resources (Cunningham & Cunningham, p. 340).

One point of strong opposition is the 1995 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision declared that essential habitat for a species must be maintained, even if that habitat exists on private land. Landowners often object to the inability to develop the land that they own. The arguments involve the complicated issue of whether the right to profit by landowners and their rights to develop their lands as they wish has more value than the survival of various species, even those species that have no obvious or direct value to humans (Cunningham & Cunningham, p. 120).

Many opponents of the ESA have tried to weaken or change existing laws because of a perceived threat to individual rights. Some believe the law is an attempt to take away private property, as well as an affront to their individual liberties (Cunningham & Cunningham, p. 121). In fact, one article on a conservative website refers to the ESA as a “tool of political environmentalists and other special interest groups-enemy of human progress, economic development, and private property rights…” The author further alleges that the act is abused by vehement environmentalists as a tool to prevent the use of lands, no matter what the use is. (DeWeese, 2006).

However, land owners are often restricted in what they can do with their land. Property laws do have restrictions, even when restrictions have nothing to do with the ESA. For instance, I have friends who live in a housing community in Colorado Springs, CO. The neighborhood has strict rules about the size and shape of structures that can be build on the property of the landowners. Further restrictions bar home businesses and rental rooms in homes. Another circumstance that I have witnessed was the attempt to build a trailer court on privately-owned property adjacent to my home. The landowner was prohibited to build a trailer court in the area due to the potential damage to the housing values in the neighborhood.

In some cases, the value of protecting species is more obvious once their numbers are replenished. When most of the gray wolves were killed in Yellowstone National Park, changes to the ecosystem were obvious. The elk and deer population rose dramatically. Plants were becoming unhealthy and fewer in varieties. The population of smaller mammals and birds in the area were greatly reduced. Once gray wolves were reintroduced, they began to feed on the deer and elk, which lowered the number of plants being damaged. Plants such as the willow and the aspen then increased, and smaller animals begin to again become more abundant (Cunningham & Cunningham, p. 95).

Saving land that is important for its historical significance has a patriotic, if not monetary, value. Reintroduction of the wolves in Yellowstone National Park may have saved one of the countries national landmarks, which has a special value in American pride. Many patriotic Americans embrace the natural beauty of our country. Another way in which preserving the gray wolf species in the area and therefore preserving the ecosystem proves valuable is the obvious benefit of the money spent by tourists visiting the area.

Environmental rules can have an impact on people who hunt and fish. Here in the Midwest, we do have people who visit during hunting season for the purpose securing deer and pheasants. Many use the animals they hunt for food. They spend money in town for supplies. Some areas lose out on this trade if they are surrounded by preserved lands. Years ago, when I worked at a newspaper, I remember my boss complaining that he got ticketed a fair amount for keeping fish that were considered too small and too young to be harvested. He had to allow his own name to be printed in the paper for the violation.

On the other side of the issue, using a local example, about five miles out of town exists a small state park. All summer long the park is filled with campers. They are allowed to catch fish in limited quantities in the Big Sioux River, but no hunting is allowed. The area has two shelter houses that people are able to rent for parties. Several cabins have been built on the property to be rented by people who wish to enjoy a few quiet days in natural surroundings. The people who utilize the park also buy groceries and other necessities in town. If this area wasn’t protected, income from those visitors would be lost. Both the park and the local merchants would suffer

The regulations of the Endangered Species Act have long been a source of debate for political opponents. Although the act was signed into law by Republican Richard Nixon, many conservative GOP politicians are in favor of repealing or changing the ESA. President George W. Bush, in the last weeks of his presidency, made decisions that ended some regulations of the act. Planned federal projects no longer needed to be reviewed by independent scientists to decide whether they harmed endangered species. A bill passed shortly after President Barack Obama took office allowed him to reverse that ruling (Schor, 2009).

Admittedly, although the legislation isn’t without its shortcomings, Congress saw the value of strengthening environmental laws when they passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Ecosystems rely on every species within them to maintain stability-the removal of one organism can cause an entire ecosystem to falter. The ESA understands the important part played by ecosystems and works to preserve them in order to protect rare and threatened species (Endangered Species Act (ESA), n.d.)

The downfall of our ecosystems can spiral into an unstoppable and permanent loss of our resources. Strong rules must be in place in order to preserve sustainability of those resources and of life on our planet. Few species have ever had as much impact on their own ecosystems as humans have had on the entire planet. How we attribute value to the elements within that ecosystem and how it responds to our use of it may ultimately decide not only how much we value it, but how much it does,  or does not, value us.

Preserving the many species of the earth serves the human race in various ways, from assuring bountiful food and other resources to providing knowledge and entertainment to us all. Congress realized the effect that depletion of natural resources could have on both our country and the world when they passed this act. Upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973, President Richard Nixon said,

"Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans" (“Why Conservation is…”, 2010).

Although both proponents and opponents have issues with the ESA as it is written, the importance of many of the species we depend on is difficult to argue with, especially those that have an obviously direct impact on human lives. Although some arguments against the law stem from valid concerns, such as those of economic issues and property rights, strengthening the existing law would have a positive effect on the planet. Improvements such as more effective and less costly methods of placing species on the list, and finding ways of putting those species on a faster track to recovery and sustainability would benefit both the endangered species and the human beings that exist alongside them.

References:

Abbitt, R.J. & Scott, J.M. (2001). Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. Cons. Bio., 15. P. 1274-1284.

Cunningham, M.A., & Cunningham, W.P. (2009). Principles of environmental science. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. DeWeese, T. (2006).

The Endangered species act: a bad law that must be repealed. The Progressive Conservative, USA, 8(28), Retrieved July 20, 2010 from http://www.proconservative.net/PCVol8Is028DeWeeseESA.shtml King, S.R. (1992).

Medicines that changed the world. Pacific Discovery, 45(1), Retrieved July 11, 2010 from http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/Ethnobotany/page4.php Maher, J.L. (2009). http://www.cawtglobal.org/home/2010/3/5/clampdown-on-medicines-made-with-endangered-plants-and-anima.html

NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. (n.d.) Endangered species act (ESA). Retrieved July 15, 2010 from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/.

Republicans for Environmental Protection. (2010). Why conservation is conservative. Retrieved July 26, 2010 from http://www.rep.org/quotes.html. Schor, E. (2009).

Democratic spending bill reverses infamous bush rule on endangered species. Retrieved July 20, 2010 from http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/democratic-spending-bill-reverses-infamous-bush-rule-on-endangered-species.php U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered species act of 1973. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/esact.html.

Learn more about this author, J.B. Doyle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.