The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released a draft recovery plan for endangered Mexican gray wolves on Thursday. An Arizona district court ordered the FWS to complete the plan by the end of November.

The last time the FWS revised the recovery plan for the Mexican wolves was 1982. The new recovery plan focuses on increasing wolf populations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico.

“At the time of recovery, the Service expects Mexican wolf populations to be stable or increasing in abundance, well-distributed geographically within their historical range, and genetically diverse,” a FWS statement said.

The recovery plan provides for the establishment and maintenance of “a minimum of two resilient, genetically diverse Mexican wolf populations.” According to the plan, the Mexican gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from endangered to threatened status when there are at least 320 wolves in the U.S. and 170 wolves in Mexico.

Michael Robinson, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that threshold is “far fewer wolves than the number scientists have said is necessary for a viable population.” Robinson also criticized the plan for not including regions that scientists have said would be “essential to their long-term survival,” including the Grand Canyon.

Before becoming endangered, the Mexican gray wolf, or “el lobo,” roamed northern Mexico and throughout Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Mexican gray wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies under the Endangered Species Act in 1976, and was absorbed into the endangered species listing of the gray wolf in 1978. Efforts to reintroduce wolves to the wild began in the late 1990s.

According to the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field, there are currently only about 100 Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona. Environmentalists and wildlife advocates have supported efforts to release more captive wolves into the wild. However, they met opposition with ranchers and rural leaders who worried that the wolves would attack livestock and wild game.

In June 2016, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish brought a case against the U.S. Department of the Interior, the FWS, and certain government officials for releasing two Mexican gray wolf pups in New Mexico without a state permit. New Mexico, along with 18 other states, argued that the Endangered Species Act required the federal government to work with them to determine how species would be reintroduced inside of their borders. The district court enjoined the defendants from releasing any Mexican gray wolves into New Mexico without a state permit.

In April 2017, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish had failed to present sufficient evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm due to the release of the wolves. The appellate court reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction and remanded the case to the district court.

Following the FWS’s release of the recovery plan draft this week, Bryan Bird, Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, called the plan a “backroom deal” that restricts the wolves from moving in suitable habitats. He also noted that President Donald Trump’s planned border wall will cut off access for wolves trying to pass between the U.S. and Mexico and make the wolves “incapable of beating the clock of extinction.”

“Future generations should have the chance to hear wolves howl on the landscape,” Bird said. “Scientists–not politicians who had undue influence on the recovery plan for Mexican gray wolves–should be making decisions about how best to protect endangered species and their habitat.”

The FWS will hold information meetings in July where members of the public will be able to submit comments on the draft recovery plan in Flagstaff, Arizona; Pinetop, Arizona; Truth or Consequences, New Mexico; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. People can also submit comments on the document online.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Wildlife Officials Draft Court-Ordered Recovery Plan for Mexican Gray Wolf appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration is proposing to allow seismic air guns to survey oil and gas deposits along the U.S. Atlantic coast, but some environmentalists are concerned that the surveys could harm marine mammals.

Seismic air gun surveys use ships that tow seismic air guns. The guns are used to shoot compressed air through the water and into the seabed. That blast reflects back information about oil and gas deposits below the seabed, according to Oceana, an international advocacy organization focused on ocean conservation. The guns shoot compressed air every 10 to 12 seconds, said Ingrid Beidron, a marine scientist and campaign manager at Oceana.

The use of seismic air guns has a controversial history due to its impact on the environment. The Associated Press reported that the United States has not conducted any seismic air gun surveys in the mid- and south-Atlantic regions for at least 30 years. In January, the Obama Administration denied six energy companies’ applications for permits to conduct air gun seismic surveys in those regions. In May, under the Trump Administration, the Department of the Interior began reviewing those same six applications.

Most recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration took action on those applications by releasing a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service on June 6 outlining the details of the plan as it seeks permits for the use of five seismic air gun surveys that could incidentally harass marine mammals.

The proposal includes measures to minimize harm to marine mammals such as prescribing a standard exclusion zone and, under some circumstances, shutting down the acoustic source so as not to disturb marine mammals. However, many environmental organizations, local governments, and businesses remain opposed to seismic air gun surveys.

Michael Jasny, director of marine mammal protection for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog post that some of the potential negative effects of the surveys could include causing marine animals to abandon their habitats, preventing animals from feeding regularly, obstructing animals’ communication, and injuring and killing fish and invertebrates.

The Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take”–or harassment, harming, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capture or collection–of species listed as “endangered” or “threatened. However, a 1982 amendment to the Act allowed for taking that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.”

The proposal in question lists five energy companies’ seismic operations, each spanning a range of days. The shortest operation would be 70 days; the longest, 308. According to the proposal, the seismic operations would generally occur within 200 nautical miles of the coast between Delaware and Cape Canaveral, Florida, with some additional activity up to 350 nautical miles from the shore. The operations would typically occur 24 hours per day.

Jasny called the surveys “an environmentally assaultive activity” that will open the east coast to offshore oil drilling. Over 120 East Coast communities, over 1,200 elected officials, over 41,000 businesses, and over 500,000 fishing families have opposed seismic air gun surveys and/or offshore drilling, according to Oceana.

If the NMFS finds that the taking will have a “negligible impact on the species or stock(s)” and “will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence users,” an incidental harassment authorization will be granted. Individuals can comment on the proposal until July 6, exactly 30 days after the date on which the proposal was released, by contacting Jolie Harrision at the NMFS.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Environmentalists Blast the Trump Administration Plans for Seismic Air Gun Surveys appeared first on Law Street.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was created more than 40 years ago and is considered by many to be an overwhelming success. Rarely has legislation ever remained in its original state over several decades; however, in its long history, the ESA has only been amended four times (1978, 1982, 1988, and 2004), with the most substantial amendments occurring in 1978. Despite many political attempts to reform the act, it seems to be largely shielded from modifications.

Under a new administration, however, efforts to delist a particular species or otherwise weaken the standing law have gained significant strength. Despite the efficacy of the act, concerns over burdensome regulations and negative impacts on private property rights have many concerned that the ESA is not as streamlined as it needs to be. Hearings began in February 2017 to “modernize” the ESA, yet it is unclear exactly how “modern” this law will become.

History of the Endangered Species Act

“Male Passenger Pigeon” Courtesy cotinis : License (Public Domain)

The now-extinct passenger pigeon is largely responsible for the expansion of wildlife conservation efforts in the early 1900s. Once the most abundant bird in North America, the passenger pigeon’s sudden extinction (occurring in less than 50 years) captivated Americans who watched as the bird died out. Prior to the passenger pigeon, the whooping crane also garnered widespread attention when it began to disappear rapidly in the late 1890s, though it is still alive today.

The Lacey Act of 1900 was the first federal law to actually regulate commercial animal markets. The act made it unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase any fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any state or federal laws. That piece of legislation was later followed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, which both met little opposition before being implemented.

Yet the official predecessor to what we now know as the Endangered Species Act was in fact the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Initially, this act provided a means of listing native species as endangered and afforded them limited protections. This also signified a shift from regulating the taking of an animal to focusing more on habitat conservation and preservation. “Taking” an animal is defined in Section 3 of the act and can occur via direct and indirect actions. In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for Greater Oregon, a Supreme Court case decided in 1995, the Court concluded that habitat modification can cause “harm” to a listed animal, thereby causing a “take.”

In 1973, President Richard Nixon sought to overhaul the current law and pass comprehensive endangered species legislation, which brought about the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Written by a team of lawyers and scientists, the new law incorporated dozens of new principles and ideas. Currently, the ESA’s stated purpose is to protect species and “the ecosystems upon which they depend.” The ESA is managed by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The FWS oversees terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the NOAA handles marine species.

The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 implemented some significant changes to the ESA. It attempted to “retain the basic integrity of the ESA, while introducing some flexibility which will permit exemptions from the act’s requirements.” One of the most important changes was the creation of the Endangered Species Committee, commonly known as the “God Squad.” The committee is composed of seven Cabinet-level members, and members have the authority to allow the extinction of a species–hence the nickname–by completely exempting a federal agency from Section 7 requirements (after prior consultation with the FWS and NOAA). To date, only the whooping crane and the northern spotted owl have been exempted from Section 7.

Critical Provisions

The primary goal of the ESA is to prevent the extinction of plant and animal life; an ancillary goal is to recover and maintain populations as much as possible by removing or thwarting threats to their survival. There are a few sections of the act that are considered to be the most powerful in their effect: Sections 4, 7, and 9.

To be listed, a species must meet one of the five criteria listed in Section 4(a)(1) of the act. The listing process is lengthy, involving multiple steps before a species is accepted. A species may be delisted, but only after the committee considers if the threats have been eliminated or controlled. This is based on several factors, including population size and growth, and the stability of habitat quality and quantity. Section 4 also requires the designation of a “critical habitat” within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list, though it normally occurs several years afterwards. A critical habitat includes geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of the species and that may need special management or protection.

Section 7 prohibits any actions that jeopardize the survival of any endangered or threatened species, as well as actions that could destroy or adversely modify critical habitats of listed species. The section requires all federal agencies to engage in the consultation process with the FWS or NOAA before engaging in any action that may threaten a listed species. Each federal agency is required under Section 7 to confer with the Secretary of the Interior on any action to ensure that such activities are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction of or adverse modification of” designated critical habitats. As noted previously, the God Squad has the power to exempt a federal agency from this consultation process under Section 7, if they find no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency’s actions.

“Threatened northern spotted owl” Courtesy of USFWS Endangered Species : License (CC BY 2.0)

Lastly, Section 9 prohibits the “taking” of a listed species. It applies to both private and public actions, and applies whether a critical habitat has been designated or not. Section 9 also forbids possessing, selling, or transporting an animal that has been obtained by an unlawful “take,” as well as other prohibitions on imports, exports, and commercial activity. Section 3 of the act specifically defines a “take” as any activity that could “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” a listed species. Harm can occur both directly and indirectly, even via certain habitat modifications.

Proven Success Rate

Currently, there are a variety of species listed as threatened or endangered, including 374 mammals, 338 birds, 185 fish, and 138 reptile species, as well as many more insects, clams, snails, and others. The FWS also acknowledges that roughly 40 species on the list are robust enough in populations to be taken off the protected list. About one percent of the 2,000 species on the list have been delisted because they recovered from extinction.

“Bald Eagle” Courtesy of Pen Waggener : License (CC BY 2.0)

Over the course of its history, the ESA has been nearly 100 percent successful at preventing listed species from going completely extinct. Its successes include the gray wolf, bald eagle, and American crocodile, which are all now thriving species. Very few laws in the U.S. can tout such a high success rate. Only 30 species have disappeared after being placed on the list; many scientists argue that adding species to the list earlier, far before they reach the critical state of endangerment, would add immensely to the ESA’s success.

What Does the Future Hold?

There is now a push to “modernize” the ESA, which defenders of the law contend is an effort to weaken or gut the act completely. Hundreds of bills, introduced primarily by Republican lawmakers, are now seeking to delist a species or somehow weaken the ESA, though most have been unsuccessful. However, the ideal environment to implement significant changes to the act appears to be brewing on Capitol Hill.

Those in favor of overhauling the ESA argue that it imposes too many far-reaching regulatory burdens, particularly on the agricultural industry. Lawmakers point out that the ESA has had a negative impact on drilling, logging, and mining, along with stifling economic growth in these industries. Moreover, private property rights are a concern since the ESA can impose restrictions on property owners’ use of their land because of a listed species. There are estimations that roughly three-quarters of species listed under the ESA reside on private land. One lawmaker recently stated that the act has “never been used for the rehabilitation of a species,” claiming that it has only been utilized to control land.

Still, opponents of any changes to the law argue that the Obama Administration began delisting species significantly, removing a record 29 species from the ESA–more than all previous administrations combined. Modernization of the ESA, environmentalists and activists state, is merely an effort to destroy “the nation’s premier and most effective wildlife conservation law.” Some states, like California, are moving to pre-empt any significant changes to the ESA by passing legislation that would add state-level protections for species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Conclusion

Few laws have ever been as successful as the ESA, which has an almost 100 percent success rate in strengthening the population of listed species. Species take decades to recover, hence the low number of animals delisted since the act’s inception. However, there are legitimate concerns about the act’s effect on industries and private landowners. Now, with a new political landscape, significant changes to the law may be on the horizon. What that means for the hundreds of species still extremely threatened or in severe danger of extinction, is still up for debate.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Endangered Species Act: Should it be Modernized? appeared first on Law Street.

Gray wolves, and sage grouse, and prairie chickens–oh my! A new GOP aim may reduce protections for a handful of endangered species.

According to the Associated Press, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said that he “would love to invalidate” the Endangered Species Act (ESA)–although it’s unclear exactly how–and he may now have the support he needs with an incoming Republican president and Republican-dominated Congress.

Republican lawmakers have previously tried to limit the number of species included on the endangered species list, complaining that protecting these animals may restrict drilling, logging, mining, and hunting. Bishop said he believed that the act had been “hijacked” and “used for control of the land.” He claims that the ESA does not actually serve the purpose of restoring endangered species.

The act was passed in 1973 to prevent the extinction of the bald eagle, which was later taken off the endangered species list. The act outlines the requirements for listing a species as endangered and allows the federal government to undertake measures to recover those species. Once recovered, a species may be delisted and no longer subject to government protection as long as its population remains stable.

In the most recent effort to limit the scope of the act, Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced a bill on January 10, backed by 11 Republicans and three Democrats, to delist the gray wolf in the Great Lakes region and Wyoming. The wolf, which often preys on game animals and livestock, was already delisted in Montana and Idaho in 2011, but two of its sub-species are close to extinction, according to Newsweek.

Though President-elect Donald Trump has not expressed a position on the Endangered Species Act, he has discussed plans to better utilize federal lands for drilling and mining.

Throughout President Barack Obama’s tenure, efforts to curb the act–by dropping restrictions for certain species, for example–have been blocked by Democratic lawmakers. According to The Hill, Republican leaders behind the measures have felt that the ESA is ineffective and imposes unnecessary restrictions on landowners.

Meanwhile, the list of endangered animals continues to grow. Recently, a type of bumblebee became the first bee–and one of 300 species added by the Obama administration–to make the list.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Lawmakers Look to Curb Endangered Species Act Under Trump Administration appeared first on Law Street.

Their tiny, delicate wings make their migration from Central Mexico to Southern Canada equitable to a trip from the Earth to the Moon and back. But due to climate change and habitat loss, the great Monarch Butterfly is growing endangered and few people are likely to act in their defense.

Butterflies are one of the first things we learn about in school, and one of the last that we come to appreciate. Many of us have fond elementary school memories of collecting caterpillars in jars for the classroom. It was an exciting project, but we rarely truly thought about the wonder of what was happening. During its time in the chrysalis, a caterpillar literally dissolves into a bag of liquid, to reassemble as a new creature. One that can take flight, and has an ingrained knowledge of its mission. A butterfly is a symbol of transformation; a reminder that patience and hard work can yield fantastic results.

Numbering in the half billions, Monarch Butterflies cluster in the Oyamel Fir Forests of Mexico, covering nearly ever square inch of tree trunk and branch. As spring appears and warms the air, they emerge from their sleepy lull and prepare for a fantastic journey. This group of insects can make it only so far, mating and subsequently dying somewhere in the Southern United States; however, their offspring appear shortly thereafter, and resume the flight northward. It takes three generations to make the trip, each one understanding its current location and distance it must travel. Then, one “super generation” makes the entire trip back to Mexico.

Courtesy of Agunther via Wikipedia.

The Oyamel Fir Forests are a product of older geological patterns, when the Earth was cooler and wetter. Monarch Butterflies are adapted to the same conditions; if it gets too hot or dry they are very susceptible to death. As the climate changes, the forest coverage recedes, leaving them vulnerable. In addition, the trees retain heat, which keeps the butterflies warm throughout the night and in general provides a suitable temperature zone for the delicate creatures. As illegal logging takes place in this region, poorly regulated by the Mexican government, the butterflies face threats on multiple fronts.

The brilliant orange shading of a Monarch’s wings is actually a defensive signal to predators, warning them of toxicity; few creatures are willing to eat a Monarch. This characteristic comes from a very particular diet, namely the milkweed leaf. It is on this plant that the caterpillar is born and, though a handful of flower types can provide food for the butterfly, is the only thing the caterpillar is capable of eating before making its transformation. Extensive use of certain herbicides and pesticides is killing milkweed in large swathes; caterpillars now face starvation before ever turning into butterflies.

A Monarch caterpillar. Courtesy of vladeb via Flickr.

In the last 20 years Monarch’s populations have declined by 90 percent, while they have lost over 160 million acres of habitat. So what is being done about this? This past August, scientists filed for protection of Monarch Butterflies under the Endangered Species Act. This would enable authorities to take more action with regard to the logging and pesticide use, as international regulations could help curb hazardous human activities.

In a recent meeting of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, panelists discussed the implementation of butterfly habitats on public property. This would basically be an extension of home gardening, insofar as planting milkweed nurseries outside on which butterflies can lay their eggs. We already enjoy hanging bird feeders in our yards and installing bird baths in parks, right? Birds are pleasant company. Butterflies are too; milkweed gardens in our yards, parks, and schools would draw beautiful creatures to our sides, enhancing our appreciation and outdoor experiences. Furthermore, as Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club’s Central Jersey Chapter Kip Cherry pointed out, it would bring greater visibility to the crisis.

Most recently, this endeavor has received a major boost from the Fish & Wildlife Service as well as the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, who together will contribute over $3 million to assist in the development of butterfly oases in communities across the country. While some people are concerned that this action is not enough, as it does not address the use of pesticides that are killing milkweed plants in the first place, it is nonetheless a major effort to provide for the butterflies and may lead to further productive measures in the future.

A milkweed field. Courtesy of mwms1916 via Flickr.

The Butterfly Effect is a scientific model that suggests a minuscule action at the outset of an event can have titanic ramifications down the line. This is often metaphorically exemplified by images of the flapping of a butterfly’s wings setting in motion a chain of events that will alter the behavior of a hurricane. Similarly, this is a common literary tool, as when a time traveler in the past steps on a butterfly and in so doing induces drastic changes to the future. These constructions are poignant because they rely on our perceptions of a butterfly’s insignificance and lack of importance.

Some people might be hesitant to act in defense of butterflies. They conjure up images of effeminateness; a delicate creature is suitable for a delicate person, such as a Victorian gentleman traipsing about with a net. I myself have been laughed at after arguing that butterflies are awesome. In addition to this cultural stereotype, the bottom line is that butterflies are insects. They have antennae and lots of legs and people find these things gross. We flinch and shoo them if they get too close. We imagine insects in general as being infinitely numerous; it is hard to accept that some of them could disappear. As far as endangered species go, they are not comparable to the great Bengal tiger, or sweet and gentle manatee, or majestic humpback whale. In fact, though, they are all of these things. Our prejudices do not entitle us to judge which species deserve to survive or die off, especially if it is our actions that are putting them in that precarious position in the first place.

Courtesy of docentjoyce via Flickr.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Member of Royalty is in Trouble appeared first on Law Street.

Repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been an increasing popular debate topic over the last several years. Though buried under other hot topics, such as foreign policy, government surveillance, and celebrity gossip, this conversation has been simmering on a back burner since at least the early 90s. The general consensus for those who would repeal the act is that it would then be reformed, though there are some who want it gone altogether. Read on to see why people are concerned about the date of the Endangered Species Act.

The History and Purpose of the ESA

The Endangered Species Act as we know it was passed by Congress in 1973. It was preceded by the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, which was amended three years later. Some of the main changes to the 1973 version included the creation of a set definitions for words such as “endangered” and “threatened,” widening the law to include plants, and restricting the federal government from any action that would endanger a listed species.

Another expansion the ESA provided was including protection guidelines from the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Washington, DC, which was signed by 80 nations taking a stand against environmentally harmful trade practices. An example of this was in 1989 when ivory imports were banned because of elephant poachers in Africa.

There were amendments to the act in 1978, 1982, 1988, and 2004, most of which dealt with defining exact parameters of what the government could and could not do, as well as smoothing out the process of proposing candidates for inclusion.

The point of the ESA is to not only stop the decimation of endangered species but also to recover them and ultimately delist them when they are no longer in danger of extinction. This is to be achieved through recovery plans written by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biologists in collaboration with experts. The goals of the FWS are further explained in this video that they released for the ESA’s fortieth anniversary last year.

When an animal or plant is listed, it becomes illegal to “take” it without a federal permit. Typically these permits are granted for reasons of conservation or scientific research. Under the definitions section of the act, “take” is explained as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Take” doesn’t apply to plants unless they are on federal land. Laws can differ slightly from state to state, however, as some may have extra restrictions. It’s always best to know the rules as they apply to you.

How does a species make the list?

When considering a candidate for listing, the Fish and Wildlife Service uses a five-factor list, any of which can make the candidate eligible.

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The species selected represent the most critical cases, but there is also a list of candidates that meet the qualifications but can’t be moved forward due to budget or time restrictions. According to the FWS, in these cases the agency “works with States, Tribes, private landowners, private partners, and other Federal agencies to carry out conservation actions for these species to prevent further decline and possibly eliminate the need for listing.”

By the Numbers

• Thirty-one listed species have been fully recovered and therefore delisted.
• Ten listed species have been delisted due to extinction.
• There are 1,371 listed animals and 886 listed plants.
• The total expenditures for the 2013 fiscal year for endangered and threatened species by federal and state governments was more than $1.7 billion.
• Sixty-eight percent of protected species whose conditions are known are improving or stable.
• Thirty-two percent of protected species whose conditions are known are declining.
• Ninety percent of listed species are on track for their recovery rate deadlines, as outlined in their recovery plans.
• A 2013 poll reported that 42 percent of Americans said that the ESA should be strengthened, 25 percent said to leave it alone, and 24 percent said it should be weakened.

For Repeal and Reform

One of the main arguments for reforming the Endangered Species Act is that there is little incentive for private landowners to comply. In fact, once an endangered species is found, the land becomes subject to restrictions without any financial compensation from the government, so there is arguably reason for such property owners to kill and dispose of the endangered animal before anyone else finds out about it. This use of government command instead of reward is a problem for free market fans and property rights activists alike.

Attorney Damien Schiff explains some of these property rights in the video below by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Schiff also brings up the idea of prioritizing species worth saving, which has been reflected in arguments that the law is too inflexible in its efforts to save every endangered species.

Others believe the act puts nature before people, as jobs that would be created developing protected land are taken away and many government dollars are spent that could be put to use on humans or that could remain in taxpayers’ pockets. It has even been suggested that selling land currently under Federal protection could result in revenue for the government.

The question of cost is addressed in the NBC News story below about saving the panda.

On the more scandalous side of the controversy, there have been allegations that seeds of listed plants have been spread across mining sites in order to halt progress. Another case of abuse of the act was when an environmental group sued the FWS because four types of shrimp weren’t listed. The legal action was allegedly an attempt to block the development of 1.7 million acres of land.

Those who are more concerned with the science behind the act say that it is actually too targeted at individual species rather than biodiversity as a whole, which could be a more effective goal. Environmentalists are also concerned that the government, charged with enforcing the ESA, doesn’t take into account the long-term effects of projects that could impact an area’s ecosystem. While a short-term risk to a listed animal would warrant a stop on the plan, some feel the government ignores or doesn’t adequately research risks that could be problematic later.

Support For the Act

A key argument against the ESA is that extinction is a natural process, but many scientists believe that it is starting to happen at an alarming rate due to human predation, clearing of habitats, and use of food sources. This is being called the sixth wave of extinction, and by this logic, we as humans should strive to correct the damage we have done. This logic is also applied when supporters factor in climate change and pollution as sources of man-made extinction. Proponents of the ESA argue that it is our moral and ethical responsibility to care for the animals and plants we have affected through our rapid expansion into their territories.

Also, scientists have proven that the extinction of one animal often disrupts the food chain to cause a domino or ripple effect of extinctions. Our health as humans could be affected by such disruptions if not kept in check, creating clear ties to our well being and that of our environment. Supporters also note that measures taken to ensure the health of animals and plants, such as stopping deforestation and keeping our waters clean, are practices from which we all benefit.

There are also questions about the origins of arguments to repeal the act–do they come from genuine concern or lobbyists from lumber, mining, and oil drilling companies? In other words, are repealers really concerned with people or corporate profit?

Another rebutted argument against the act is that it has only a one percent success rate (with success being measured only in delistings), but less than one percent of species listed have gone extinct. This, plus the fact that the majority of measured populations are stable or increasing, makes it clear that this seemingly crippling statistic isn’t so impressive, after all. In addition, the above-listed statistic about 90 percent of species being on track for recovery is a strong argument for a different–and more optimistic–measurement of success. If the act is allowed to continue, successes will come in time, preserving our wildlife for future generations.

Perhaps the simplest reason for support is that the ESA makes people more conscious of the world around them. It informs the public of species that need to be protected, increases awareness of humans’ effect on other lifeforms, and it creates dialogue about the consequences if said species die out. After all, if there are unknown consequences to certain animals’ extinction, we may not discover them until it is too late.

Conclusion

It seems that many questions surrounding the Endangered Species Act have to do with the worth of funding such a large endeavor and how to accurately measure its success. If one takes a narrow approach in defining success as delisting, the ESA has very little to show. If one accounts for improvement and stability, though, there is a lot more weight behind the project. Is it the government’s place to support wildlife, or would we be better off focusing on ourselves? Does the 41-year-old act need a facelift in order to make it more efficient and beneficial to humans? This issue hasn’t moved into the political forefront yet, but as the volume of this conversation increases, Americans are going to need to decide what role they play in the natural world.

Resources

Primary 

FIsh and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ESA Basics

Fish and Wildlife Service: A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Delisting Report

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Animals

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Plants

Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures

Conservation Biology: Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn’t Work–And What to Do About It

Additional

Citizen Review: Everybody Knows They’re Not Really Endangered: We Just Need Them to Stop Mining

Defenders of Wildlife: Conservation Leaders From Congress, Interior & Citizen Groups Decry Bill to ‘Repeal’ Endangered Species Act

National Wildlife Foundation: Endangered Species Act by the Numbers

LA Times: Foe of Endangered Species Act on Defensive Over Abramoff

BBC: Biodiversity: The Sixth Great Wave

Daily Mail: Scientists Use Wasps and Aphids to Prove ‘Domino Effect’ of Extinction

Politifact: Only One Percent of Endangered Species List Have Been Taken Off List

ESA Success: 110 Success Stories for Endangered Species Day 2012

Biological Diversity: Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Want Congress to Strengthen, Protect Endangered Species Act

WND: Repeal the Endangered Species Act

Biological Diversity: A Wild Success

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endangered Species Act: Repeal and Reform or Leave it Alone? appeared first on Law Street.