Is the Endangered Species Act Extinct? (Final)

Brianna
Eng 308J
8 February 2009
Is the Endangered Species Act Extinct?
What do you think of when you hear the phrase ‘endangered species?’ Perhaps you think of one of the more recently listed animals, polar bears, floating sadly on their ice chunks, separated from their crying cubs. Perhaps you think of bald eagles, soaring from captivity and off of the endangered species list. Perhaps you think of your favorite animal, be it the sea turtle, the Jamaican boa, the black howler monkey, or the grizzly bear, all of which are listed as endangered or threatened. But that is why we have the Endangered Species Act (ESA), right? To protect all of these majestic and wonderful creatures?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Time and time again we see proof demonstrating the painful truth of this English proverb. The Endangered Species Act is one of the best current examples which can be cited. Put in place in 1973 by President Nixon it was created as a declaration that the United States had “pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction (“Endangered Species Act of 1973,” 3).” The ESA protects these living things through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service as headed by the United States Department of the Interior. This protection is accomplished mainly through the setting aside of land into critical habitats. A critical habitat is one which must be set aside as a recovery environment for the endangered or threatened species. It is required that each listed animal have a critical habitat in which they can reproduce and live. This habitat is to be the areas which the animals are occupying at the time of the listing (“Critical Habitat”). That is to say that if a rare flower were to be blooming in your corn field, the government could tell you to set acres of land aside to allow the flower to thrive. Plants and animals are added directly by the FWS and the NOAA Fisheries, as well as through organization and private petition (wikipedia.org). This sounds just as wonderful and marvelous as the animals and plants it was written to save. What then, is the problem?

The problem is that since its inception, the Endangered Species Act has delisted, as of January 2009, a total of 39 animals. Though this sounds acceptable, one must consider that 9 of these species were delisted due to extinction and another 16 due to incorrect data. That leaves 14 species that have been delisted due to recovery. Still sound like an achievement? There are 1,359 species of plants and animals currently protected by the ESA (Klinkenborg, 106). That is a 1% recovery rate. This is not even accounting for the animals and plants with low numbers vying to get on the list.

Also, farmers and other land owners are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of incentive to keep land as a critical habitat. Ben Cone understands the dilemma this can cause. Cone is a responsible tree-farmer from North Carolina. He let his trees grow for 80-100 years before he harvested them allowing wildlife to flourish among them. It is for this reason the government wanted Cone to have a biologist check his trees to see if the endangered red cockaded woodpeckers had made his land home – they only nest in trees at least 80 years of age. The FWS stuck Cone with the $8,000 bill for the biologist and when woodpeckers were found in his farm, they required him to set aside 1,560 acres of his 7,200 acre farm for the woodpeckers. That does not sound unreasonable. It is less than one fourth his land and he still has room to farm. However, it cost Cone $1.8 million. He received no compensation. It also caused him to harvest younger trees from the area he could farm, driving countless other species away (Bailey). In the same vein, many landowners and homebuilders take the months between when a species is declared as endangered and the when critical habitats are actually established to destroy any habitat they may have to prevent government seizure. This is the case with the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl near Tucson, Arizona where landowners hurriedly cleared any land that could be considered critical habitat (Dubner, 2).

Because of these issues, groups have come together to reform the ESA. However, most of these prospective reforms have been at the expense of the plants and animals it is looking to protect. For example, the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition calls for more voluntary compliance and less government control (“Improving the ESA” 2-5). History proves that we as human beings rarely do things when not forced. Also, President George W. Bush tried as his time in office expired, to gut the ESA completely. This would open up all current critical habitats for farming, mining, and building, effectively killing the endangered species that live there (Dickinson, 1). Bush also pushed a de facto law allowing politicians rather than scientists to study and declare species as endangered or threatened. It would also “prohibit federal agencies from taking climate change into account in weighing the impact of projects that increase greenhouse emissions (Dickinson, 1).” Polar bears would be as good as dead. However, as Obama took office January 20, 2009, he stopped any laws that had not yet been finalized, saving the ESA. Though some laws, such as the one granting power to politicians over biologists had already been finalized, the new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has said he will review this legislation (Huta).

So where is the happy medium? The ESA cannot be scrapped completely being that, however flawed, it is the only safety net set in place for dwindling populations of fauna and flora. Still, we cannot leave the Endangered Species act as is, in a perpetual state of limbo, being renewed annually since 1992 for funding from Congress (Buck, 1) and taking land from unwilling citizens without compensation. If we want to continue to enjoy plants and animals, and more importantly, keep the ecosystem from spiraling, we need to try implementing new and innovative ideas – ideas in the plural. These ideas will, undoubtedly, anger some people. We as a human race gauge our success on our ability to overcome and conquer nature. When this is taken away, some will be irritated.

The first revision that needs to be made is a multiyear renewing of the act by Congress with amendments. A multiyear renewal will allow the FWS and NOAA to flex more muscle without having to worry about losing all funding from Congress. With this renewal needs to come adequate funding of the Act. The FWS and NOAA currently receive $407 million per year to execute the Endangered Species Act. It is estimated by the National Wildlife Federation that an increase over the next five years to $693 million would more sufficiently fund the program. This dramatic increase in funding would only take $1.59 per year for each United States citizen (DiSilvestro, 2). In comparison, the War on Terror is at an average cost of $341.4 million per day (“Cost of War”). With this funding, not only would the FWS and NOAA be more able to set aside critical habitats and do much needed testing of populations, but they would be more able to give grants to landowners. This could reverse the incentives from a program which inadvertently causes landowners to scrap what could be the home to endangered species and make it more practical for them to set aside land. Critical habitats have, after all, been proven to help the species recover (Mott, 2).

Another key change that needs to be made in the implementation of the ESA is proactive measures. We as citizens of the United States have conquered nature. We have proven that we are, in fact, dominant and can live in any environment. That said, we still like to think that we really care about nature, that we are doing our best to aid in the sustainment and recovery of these endangered and threatened species. But are we really? What is the cause of the endangerment of 1,359 species of plant and animal? The short answer? Us. It is because of the expansion of human beings into the habitats of these creatures that they are becoming extinct. For example, take the dusky seaside sparrow of Merritt Island. The only places to see them now are in photographs and small, clear bottles filled with alcohol. One of these bottles is in the Ornithology Collection in the Florida Museum of Natural History where an attached tag sadly reads in scrawled handwriting, “Last One.” The sparrows of Merritt Island were declared an extinct species in 1990. What led to this? Was it hunting or introduction of an invasive, nonnative species? No. It was humankind conquering nature with a wonder pesticide called DDT (Klinkenborg, 90).

We need to think through our actions before we act. We need to set up a government program, implemented by nonprofit organizations, in which land is preserved BEFORE an animal is listed as threatened. The environmental impact of decisions needs to be weighed with as much care as the economical.

In closing, I ask that you care. If not for the animals and plants themselves, then for the warning sign they stand for. Animal and plant health is a good indicator of where we are headed. We may be more adept at handling the consequences of our actions, but if we continue on this road, we as the human race will be our ultimate demise.

Works Cited

Bailey, Ronald. “Who Pays for the Delhi Sands Fly?” Hawaii Reporter. 27 July 2005. 3
February 2009
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2908d135-6ebf-4647-8310-a7c0416ce86a.

Buck, Eugene et. all. “CRS Report for Congress: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) the
110th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices.” Federation of
American Scientists Website. 10 October 2007. 3 February 2009
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33779.pdf.

“Critical Habitat.” NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. 2008. 3 February
2009
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.html.

Dickinson, Tom. “Bush’s Final F.U.” Rolling Stone. 25 December 2009. 3 February 2009
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24991066/bushs_final_fu/1.

DiSilvestro, Roger and Kathrine Furey. “Fair Funding for Wildlife: Investing In Our
Commitment To Save America’s Endangered Wildlife.” National Wildlife
Federation Website. March 2007. 3 February 2009 http://www.nwf.org/endangered/pdfs/FairFundingForWildlifeFullReport.pdf.

Dubner, Stephen J. and Steven D. Levitt. “Unintended Consequences.” The New York
Times Magazine. 20 January 2008. 3 February 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=unintended%20consequences&st=cse&scp=1.

“Endangered Species Act.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 4 February 2009. 8
February 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act.

“Endangered Species Act of 1973 As Amended Through the 108th Congress.” United
States Fish and Wildlife Services Website. 24 November 2003. 3 February 2009
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/ESAall.pdf.

Huta, Leda. “High Hopes for Endangered Species.” Weblog entry. Stop Extinction Blog. 3 February 2009. 8 February 2009
http://stopextinctionblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/high-hopes-for-endangered-species.html

“Improving the ESA: A Potential New Approach.” National Endangered Species Act
Reform Coalition Website. 16 November 2004. 3 February 2009
http://www.nesarc.org/newapproach.pdf.

Klinkenborg, Verlyn. “Last One.” National Geographic. January 2009: 88-107.

Mott, Maryann. “U.S. Endangered Species Act Works, Study Finds.” National
Geographic News. 18 April 2005. 3 February 2009
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0418_050418_endangered.
html.

Sabater, Liza. “4,000 Deaths by the Numbers.” Weblog entry. Awearness Blog. 25 March
2008. 8 February 2009
http://awearnessblog.com/2008/03/4000-deaths-by-the-number.php.