Environmental Law: Endangered Species Act

It is early in the morning as the sun is just rising above the canopy of the Costa Rican rainforest. Everything is silent, except for the chirping of birds and the buzzing of insects. The sun reflects off of the dew on the trees and howler monkeys make screeching howls signaling a much more sinister visitor. A loud crash rings through the rainforest as a tree strikes the ground. Men with chainsaws and tractors are clearing a several hundred acre area of forest to make way for a new resort. Many animals that make this forest their homes are forced to evacuate as one tree after another comes crashing down. It is saddening to note that of the six million square miles of rainforest that once existed, only about 2.6 million square miles remain. If the tropical rainforest continues to disappear at this rate, about five to ten percent of rainforest species will disappear every decade (Rainforests, 2009). Things are not much better in the U.S. where well over a thousand species are in danger of disappearing forever. It is clear that more laws are needed to protect our natural resources. Over thirty years ago, the Endangered Species Act came into existence in the United States. Since its inception, the act has taken a beating because of its restrictions on construction/human activities and the low number of species that have recovered over the last several years.

So what exactly is the Endangered Species Act? Well, the act was passed by Congress in 1973 because it believed that all of the plants and animals in our country make up a very important natural resource. Congress stated that "the purpose of the ESA was to provide a means to preserve the ecosystems in which endangered species survive, to provide a program to conserve such species, and to enter into appropriate treaties for species protection on an international level" (Kubasek, 2008, p. 410). It appeared that our countries endangered species would have a chance.

While it appeared that the ESA would be a miracle worker for America's endangered species, it has received a tremendous beating over the last couple of decades. Critics are bombing the act, which is now protecting over one thousand species. They claim it has halted the construction of roads in order to protect endangered flies, disabled dams in order to protect breeding salmon, and put farmers in dire straits in order to protect suckerfish in the Pacific Northwest (Endangered Species Act, 2004). It's clear that there is not only conflict between environmentalists and farmers but also between man and beast. According to Mark Plummer (1997), who is the author of articles related to wildlife conservation and property rights, another flaw of the act is that the people who own land with an endangered species on it live under the rules of the ESA. If a property owner has an endangered species on his/her land, then he/she is held responsible for it.

While there are some people who believe the Endangered Species Act is a failure, there are those who believe that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is a success. Many people credit the Endangered Species Act with the recovery of the American bald eagle, our national symbol. It was expected to be off the threatened species list as of the end of 2004. At one point, the bald eagle was in very bad shape, having been reduced to fewer than 400 breeding pairs in the early 1960's. Ranchers killed them and the use of DDT, a pesticide, also killed them. By the late 1970's the bald eagle was endangered in eighty six percent of the fifty states. Things improved somewhat in the mid 1990's when the bald eagle was found to be threatened instead of endangered. Now, after almost disappearing forty years ago, breeding pairs of bald eagles are numbering over seven thousand in the United States (Bald Eagle, 2004). One thing that environmentalists are trying to point out is that the progress of each species is measured in decades. This is supported by the recovery of the bald eagle. They also admit that the species that are on the list now will probably stay there for many more years. Environmentalists stress that many more years of elbow grease and hard work will be needed to see a species fully recover (Groups Cite Success, 1999).

The condition of the gray wolf has also improved drastically because of the protection provided by the Endangered Species Act. In early 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took the wolves' range and separated it into three areas. The Eastern and Western populations were no longer endangered; instead they were threatened. The Eastern portion runs from the Dakotas east to Maine while the Western portion runs from the Dakotas's westward (Judge Overturns Relaxed, 2005).

According to Nancy Kubasek (2008), approximately 1,311 plant and animal species were on the list of threatened and endangered species as of 2006. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the number had increased to 1574 species as of early 2008 (Summary, 2009). According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, forty- two have vanished from the list since the act came into existence. Of those forty-two species, seventeen of those have left the list because they recovered. The others either disappeared from the face of the planet or were delisted for other reasons (Kubasek, 2008).

There are many individuals who insist that the Endangered Species Act is "broken" and nothing but trouble. These same people also believe that the act is not successful when it comes to reclassifying and recovering species. Mark Plummer (1997) says that the act is a failure when it comes to several measures of success. He says that even species with stable populations had made very little progress toward full recovery. Over the twenty one-year period from 1973 to 1994, only thirteen species were reclassified. According to Plummer, the number of species going from endangered to threatened occurs less frequently than delisting. The Fish and Wildlife agency released a report on the recovery of listed species. The report, released every two years, showed that only sixty-nine of the seven hundred eleven species listed then were thought to be improving. The percentage of those organisms that were described as declining combined with the percentage of those being described as unknown was higher than the combined percentages of those that were either stable or improving. The combined percentages of those that were declining or unknown was 60%. The combined percentages of those that were stable or improving was just under 38 %.

Another person who believes that the act has done more bad than good is Representative Rich Pombo of California. He said he was set on recasting the Endangered Species Act. "It's the death-of-a-thousand-cuts approach," (Representative Pombo, 2004) said Bart Semcer, fish and wildlife policy specialist for the Sierra Club. However, Pombo insists that, "environmental regulations too often infringe on the rights of farmers and homeowners" (Representative Pombo, 2004). A lot of Republicans believe Representative Pombo is right when he says the law needs to be completely changed. While a few Democrats agree with Rep. Pombo's view, most are willing to do anything to see that the act isn't overhauled from top to bottom.

In September of 2005, Richard Pombo's House committee approved a bill (written by Pombo) that would completely modify the Endangered Species Act. The bill would limit "the federal government's ability to protect plant and animal habitat" (House Panel, 2005). The bill was then sent to a Senate committee. As of March of 2006, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had yet to put together an endangered species bill and it wasn't known if the senators would be able to reach an agreement (Biologists Urge Senate, 2006).

The problem with the critics of the Endangered Species Act is that they do not put anywhere near the amount of attention on the successes of the act as they do on the failures. These critics believe that the act should be done away with just because only a couple of dozen species have recovered. Well, I have a question for these critics: Where would those couple of dozen species be today if the Endangered Species Act had not existed?

Doing away with the Endangered Species Act is not the solution. According to Mr. David Langhorst, there are those people who believe that the ESA's top priority--to help protect all of the United States' threatened and endangered species--should be left behind. Langhorst says that the opponents of the ESA believe that "the fate of each species [should] be left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce" (Langhorst, 1997, pp. 50-52).

Throwing away the ESA's goal would not be very smart to say the least. The reason is because the extinction rate in the world's rain forests is way above where it should be, at least "1000 to 10,000 times the rate that would exist without human disturbances of the environment" (Langhorst, 1997, pp. 50-52). Unfortunately, a very large number of species here in the United States could go extinct over the next several years. This could be disastrous, considering that we use numerous plant and animal species worldwide to make food, medicine, and so on. A very large amount of the medicines we have today contain important ingredients from our world's plants. It's also important to point out that many animal and plant species could provide us with the ingredients we need to help the economy of the U.S. thrive for generations to come.

After hearing arguments from both sides, one reaches two conclusions. First of all, the Endangered Species Act is a very important law. Second, it has been successful in

recovering certain species, the gray wolf and the American bald eagle being just two

examples of such recovery. Even so, it's clear that there is conflict between property owners (farmers and ranchers included) and environmentalists.

The main issue seems to be property. The Environmental Species Act has blocked off large areas of land to development. This land usually has endangered or threatened species living on it. Many developers and property owners are upset because they feel that by blocking off these expansive areas of land, development is being slowed. The halting of freeway construction is just one example of how development can be slowed (Endangered Species Act, 2004).

It seems that things are being done to end the conflict between private landowners and the Endangered Species Act. According to a news release posted on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website a few years ago, "grants totaling more than $6.9 million are being awarded to private landowners and groups in 35 states through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Private Stewardship Grants program to undertake conservation projects on their land for endangered, threatened and other at-risk species" (Landowner's Receive, 2006). While many would say that former President Bush was not much of an environmentalist, the program was "a Bush Administration initiative launched four years ago to empower citizens to conserve imperiled species on private lands across the nation" (Landowner's Receive, 2006). It assists private landowners in planning and implementing projects to conserve species.

As of 2006, Nevada had thirty-eight endangered or threatened species (Kubasek 411). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this number had increased to 41 species as of May 2, 2008. The majority of the endangered and threatened species are fish and plants. Some notable endangered fish are the Devils Hole Pupfish and the Desert Dace and the only known endangered reptile is of course the Desert Tortoise. Mammals such as the Bighorn Sheep are also being affected by the encroachment of man (Nevada's Protected Species, 2009). As of now, "Nevada is among the top ten states in the number of federally listed endangered and threatened species" (Nevada Water Facts, n.d.). More than 300 plants and animals in Nevada are candidates for listing.

Up to this point, this paper has discussed how human activities impact species and why the ESA was implemented to deal with this issue. We must also remember that there are many factors besides man that can cause the decline of a species. Besides man, climate change is another contributing factor. It is believed by many that Global Warming is causing many species in fragile habitats to go extinct and is causing others to shift their geographic locations. Also, as these species are moving, they are not able to evolve fast enough so that they can adapt to their new locations. Many also believe that Global Warming is being influenced by human activities (to what extent is not known). As we can see, it all appears to be connected. Since climate change is a significant factor in species extinction, it makes it even more challenging to protect species under laws such as the ESA (Global Warming Increases, 2006).

From all that has been discussed, it is clear that the number of endangered and threatened species continues to increase steadily. While there has been some success in recovering certain species such as the Bald Eagle and the wolves, many species of plants and animals continue to dwindle. Opponents of the ESA use this fact to point out that the ESA is "broken." However, opponents that use this argument jump the gun too soon. One important fact that they look over is that the success of a species recovery is measured in decades, not just one or two years (the Bald Eagle being a great example). Also, there are many other factors that play into the success of a species, including changes in geography due to climate change. While it is true that the act has had some effects on development, it is possible for an agreement between environmentalists and developers. One way for this to happen is by providing incentives to property owners for protecting endangered species on their land. As of today, the future of the ESA is still up in the air. Unfortunately, bills that have been introduced to the house and senate (which did not pass) were mainly geared towards weakening the act.

Bald eagle to be taken off threatened species list. (2004, May 15). Retrieved

April 20, 2009, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120048,00.html

Biologists urge senate to not change endangered species act. (2006, March 9).

Retrieved April 25, 2009, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187328,00.html

Langhorst, D. (1997). Endangered Species Act: Pro. In T. Goldfarb (Ed.), Taking

sides: clashing views on controversial environmental issues (pp. 50-52). Guilford:

Dushkin/McGraw Hill.

Endangered species act hits 30-year mark. (2004, January 9). Retrieved April

20, 2009, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107975,00.html

Global warming increases species extinctions worldwide, university of Texas at Austin Researcher Finds. (2006, November 14). Retrieved April 27, 2009, from

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2006/11/14/biology/

Groups cite success of endangered species act. (1999, June 10). Retrieved April

22, 2009, from http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9906/10/endangered.species.enn/

House panel OKs rewrite of endangered species act. (2005, September 22).

Retrieved April 25, 2009, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170187,00.html

Judge overturns relaxed wolf protections. (2005, February 1). Retrieved April

23, 2009, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146049,00.html

Kubasek, N. (2008). Environmental law. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.

Landowners receive $6.9 million for endangered species conservation; South

Carolina's milliken forestry resources to receive single largest grant in program's history. (2006, June 1). Retrieved April 27, 2009, from http://news.fws.gov/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=90478CB5-AA95-40E0-

8EA05EAA13E92DF7

Nevada water facts: water resource issues in Nevada. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from

http://water.nv.gov/WaterPlanning/wat-fact/issues.cfm#endangered

Nevada's protected species. (2009, January 21). Retrieved April 27, 2009, from

http://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species/nevada_species_list.html

Plummer, M. (1997). Endangered Species Act: Con. In T. Goldfarb (Ed.), Taking

Sides: Clashing views on controversial environmental issues (p. 56). Guilford:

Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.

Rainforests. (2009). Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.nature.org/rainforests/ex

plore/facts.html

Representative Pombo to slowly recast species act.(2004, January 12). Retrieved

April 23, 2009, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108158,00.html

Summary of the endangered species act. (2009, February 19). Retrieved April 27^th, 2009,

from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html