An undercover BBC sting has exposed a secret network of illegal baby chimpanzee traders, based in the Ivory Coast. Reporters posed as potential buyers for a year-long BBC News investigation, exposing the illegal ring that had evaded police for years.

Capturing and selling baby apes is a highly profitable trade, as the animals are popular pets in the Gulf States, Southeast Asia, and China. For years, videos of the notorious “blue room” filled with captive baby chimps for sale circulated, but no one knew exactly where the operation’s headquarters were.

Buying a baby chimpanzee comes at a cost of at least $12,500. Capturing infant chimps normally requires the killing of the parents and other full-grown apes in the family so they won’t intervene. In order to kidnap one live baby, as many as ten adults are often slaughtered. This has an enormous impact on the chimpanzee population, as illegal poaching of the endangered species is a big problem in this part of the world.

BBC News reveals shocking trade in baby chimps

*map shows extent of illegal great apes trafficking routes https://t.co/cVcwyRZRBi pic.twitter.com/hpeUMSsODH

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 31, 2017

After they are kidnapped, the baby chimpanzees are shipped–often in hidden crates behind other animals–to rich buyers in other parts of the world. The Cites agreement (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ) restricts international trade of endangered animals, and chimps are under its highest level of protection. They can only be exported if they have been bred in captivity, and any organizations exporting or importing them need to be registered with Cites.

Despite this, some smugglers are able to circumvent these controls by easily purchasing fake trade permits in West Africa. Another common tactic is to get a permit for less endangered animals and simply hide the chimps among them.

Seized from the jungle, orphaned, sold to smugglers, then rescued after a BBC investigation – meet Nemley junior on #BBCNewsTen tonight pic.twitter.com/6op0wzOLK9

— David Shukman (@davidshukmanbbc) January 30, 2017

Once the infant chimps are no longer cute babies, they are often abandoned, locked up, or even killed. Swiss wildlife activist Karl Amman described the practice as a “kind of slavery.”

“They still have 90% of their life ahead of them,” Amman said. “They get locked in some cage and maybe even killed in some cases because they have outlived their useful pet stage.That for me is just impossible to accept.”

The BBC reporters exposed the chimpanzee trafficking ring by building relationships with the smugglers and pretending to represent wealthy clients, leading to the rescue of a one-year-old chimp.

However, experts have found that most baby chimps are traumatized for life after seeing their parents killed. Dan Bucknall, of the wildlife charity Tusk, stated that the recovery could be “very difficult with such clever sentient animals.” But he added that they are also resilient: “In the right hands, with good carers, and with constant attention, they can do OK and the prospects are good.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baby Chimpanzee Trafficking Network Discovered in West Africa 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.

Apparently everyone uses social media these days–even poachers. A string of wildlife traffickers based out of Vietnam have been discovered using Facebook to sell large amounts of ivory, rhino horn, and tiger parts. On Monday and Tuesday the results from a yearlong investigation by the Wildlife Justice Commission WJC, will be presented at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

Investigators combed through a small Vietnamese village, Nhi Khe and found illegal goods worth $53.1 million, sold by 51 villagers both online and in person. Sadly, these products come from what are believed to be 907 elephants, 579 rhinos, 225 tigers, and other endangered species such as pangolins, bears, hawksbill turtles, and helmeted hornbills.

WJC tweeted early Monday morning the upsetting insight that people in the village didn’t even know what the animals used to make their products look like.

#WJCVietnam: @ossendryver on visit to VN found people didn’t really know what rhinos or elephants were ‘as animals’ just as products

— WJC (@WJCommission) November 14, 2016

The rise of social media has made it easier to sell products from the safety of your home. These sales happen through auctions in closed Facebook groups, where new visitors need to get approved by an admin before becoming members. Smugglers mainly sell processed products made from ivory or rhino, but there are also whole tusks and horns on the market. Payment is made via WeChat Wallet. They seem to be selling locally in Southeast Asia through Facebook, and use WeChat itself to sell to China.

Olivia Swaak-Goldman, Executive Director at WJC, said in a statement: “Our evidence shows that an amount of rhino horn equivalent to nearly half the rhinos poached annually in South Africa transits this village. Stopping this illegal trade requires urgent action.”

Tune into the #WJCVietnam Hearing by visiting: https://t.co/6QkP25KvfC pic.twitter.com/ymHayrIofW

— Born Free Foundation (@BFFoundation) November 14, 2016

But despite all the evidence, the statement said, in combination with diplomatic efforts, the Vietnamese government has not taken any action to stop the illegal smuggling. The government seems to have taken steps to prevent open trade, but behind closed doors, secret trading is still going on. This inaction is likely due to corruption.

#WJCVietnam: Milliken: we believe corruption is major issue at both ends of #illegaltrade supply chain. VN syndicates at both ends of chain.

— WJC (@WJCommission) November 14, 2016

However, on Monday morning, during the first part of the hearing, environmental reporting agency IISD tweeted that Vietnamese officials had made an arrest in connection to the wildlife traffickers.

#WJCVietnam: Viet Nam has made first arrest based on @WJCommission evidence last weekend. “An important first step.” https://t.co/xffQMd8JJD pic.twitter.com/0Mre9phfn3

— IISDRS (@IISDRS) November 14, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vietnamese Wildlife Traffickers Sell Ivory and Rhino Horn On Facebook appeared first on Law Street.

The status of the wild jaguar is “near threatened” according to World Wildlife Fund. Still, one of them was shot dead after an Olympic torch ceremony in the town of Manaus in Brazil on Wednesday.

The torch ceremony took place at a zoo and featured a jaguar, which is the Brazilian Olympic team’s mascot. According to an army statement, the animal fled from its handlers right after the ceremony. Veterinarians tried to sedate it using tranquilizers, but the jaguar resisted and lunged at a soldier, who saw no other solution than shooting it.

An endangered jaguar was killed moments after being used in the Olympic Torch ceremony. https://t.co/IScjZDedhv pic.twitter.com/Z5oatwHluB

— The Dodo (@dodo) June 22, 2016

The zoo was right next to a military center where soldiers handled the animal. However, using the jaguar, known as Juma, in the Olympic ceremony was actually illegal, said IPAAM, the Amazon state government environmental authority that restricts the use of wild animals. No one had applied to use the jaguar and therefore no permit was issued. IPAAM will investigate the incident.

The official organizing committee for Rio 2016 posted an apology on its Portuguese Twitter account that said the organization was wrong to have displayed the torch next to a wild, chained animal, and vowed that it will not happen again.

Erramos ao permitir que a Tocha Olímpica,símbolo da paz e da união entre povos,fosse exibida ao lado de um animal selvagem acorrentado.(1/3)

— Rio 2016 (@Rio2016) June 21, 2016

That assurance comes a little late for animal rights groups across the world. PETA issued a statement criticizing the whole thing, saying:

Wild animals held captive and forced to do things that are frightening, sometimes painful, and always unnatural are ticking time bombs—captivity puts animal and human lives at risk.

What were they thinking? Jaguar fatally shot following Olympic torch ceremony in Brazil https://t.co/Urceo7qJjc #RIP pic.twitter.com/lQYeywzd9x

— PETA (@peta) June 22, 2016

Animal behavior scientist Joao Paulo Castro told the BBC:

It’s neither healthy nor advisable to subject an animal to such a situation, with lots of noise and people. Often, jaguars already are stressed by being kept in captivity; that’s only compounded when they’re exposed to hubbub.

Others have also reacted on social media, calling for justice for Juma.

Rest in Peace poor innocent one #Juma the Jaguar who was mercilessly shot dead after Brazil’s Olympic torch… https://t.co/y6B7RXJNrn

— Broken Paws (@Broken_Paws_Int) June 22, 2016

Justice for Juma the Jaguar https://t.co/sOASnQ0hJC pic.twitter.com/zbgbZ5LbDY

— Compassion 4 Animals (@AmyRoseKathryn) June 22, 2016

I have met this jaguar. It lunged at me, but for a cuddle only. Sad to hear this https://t.co/EEfH883nvb

— Bill Bailey (@BillBailey) June 22, 2016

Despite not having even started, the Rio Olympics is surrounded by bad news–with the outbreak of the Zika virus, reports of being bankrupt, a high crime rate, bad organizing, and the impeachment of Brazil’s President. Hopefully the games will get its act together by the official start on August 5.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jaguar Killed While Fleeing Olympic Torch Ceremony in Brazil appeared first on Law Street.

Images of deforestation are among the most striking when it comes to addressing human impact on the environment and all the problems that follow. Similarly, endangered animals are constantly in the conversation and the need to enact more protections and conservation measures remains pressing.

Read More: Endangered Species Protections: Are We Doing Enough?

Yet what tends to be overlooked is that from both an ecological and human policy-related standpoint these things are deeply interrelated. When we consider how to protect and improve our forests and our biodiversity, we should think about them in tandem.

Among the innumerable reasons why maintaining forests is important, one is that they store carbon. Having it naturally contained in the biomass means that there is less in the atmosphere; forests help keep greenhouse gases and climate change in check. But, as has been a topic of conversation for decades now, some of the most substantial ones, such as the Amazon Rainforest, are in danger. A 30-year study by the University of Leeds concluded that the unnaturally large amount of carbon in the atmosphere has accelerated the lifespans of trees there. This means that they die younger; high tree mortality is an unexpected contributor to the shrinking of the rainforest. It is not just a matter of logging and increased building. With a higher tree mortality and a decreasing range of the forest, the amount of carbon the rainforest can store has been overtaken by the amount of fossil fuel emissions in Latin America.

Courtesy of CIFOR via Flickr.

Another consequence of deforestation is the loss of biodiversity that resides therein. It has been determined that there exists a “threshold” for forest cover, and if it is surpassed then the loss of species accelerates in quantity and geographic spread. Most surveys tracking deforesting activity indicate that thresholds are drawing quite near or have recently been surpassed. The problem with the way this issue is approached is that Brazilian law applies activity to individual farms and their property. Rather, due to the more complex nature of animal geographies and forest topography, policies need to take into account particular regions in the rainforest.

This concept is further complicated by the interrelatedness of forests and animals. It is not just a matter of aesthetically preserving animals, but they play an integral role in the health of the forest itself. Similar to how bees have a key function in floral reproduction because they distribute pollen from plant to plant, large animals spread around tree seeds as they go about their business. Big mammals in particular tend to have a wide range, traveling far in search of food and marking their territory. As forests and animals affect each other reciprocally, damaging one invariably damages the other, which in turn degenerates the other further and onward in the vicious cycle. This is another series of reasons why the New Jersey bear hunt ought to be rethought.

Courtesy of laurence_baulch via Flickr.

These problems are not restricted to the Amazon and Latin America. The national park system in the United States is primarily designed to preserve scenic natural wonders. Yet a new study demonstrates that the locations of these parks do not line up with the general locations of biodiversity in the country that are in need of protection. The bulk of parks is concentrated in the American West, where the lands are relatively sparsely inhabited compared to the East, South, and Appalachians, which contain many “unique or rare species” whose interests are not properly addressed. It is in these geographic regions, researchers explain, that the majority of the continent’s endemic species are located. Meaning that they are not found elsewhere in the world or in other habitats, endemic species play an vital role in the health and operations of their ecosystems. Once more, if they become too severely threatened and begin to die out then the surrounding forests and general environments themselves, and subsequently human health, are likely to degrade substantially.

In addition to striving to protect the correct and most vulnerable areas, there are generally speaking two measures we can take in order to avert crises. The first is to pursue development in a more conservation-oriented fashion. Laying down specific ground rules when pursuing building projects, especially roadways and infrastructure, can help decrease the amount of destruction that follows. This way, as representatives of the plan have put it, “We’re not anti-development, we’re anti-environmentally destructive development.” The second course of action is to actively attempt to restore forest cover. Leading the way in this endeavor is China, whose Three-North Shelter Forest Program is creating a corridor of trees intended to diminish expansion of the Gobi Desert. Reducing desertification will also ensure there is more farmable land, which is obviously in human interest as well.

We have been talking for a very long time about saving the trees and preserving the rainforest. But there is a lot more at stake than symbolic environmentalism or ensuring there is enough oxygen to breathe. Carbon storage, wildlife habitats, anti-erosion, anti-desertification, and many other things on a long list are at stake. Addressing these concerns, while also thinking about the status of many animals, will help to improve the condition of both as well as the many interrelated factors on the Earth.

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 Why Protecting Forests and Animals Should Be the Same Mission appeared first on Law Street.

One decade ago, the iconic Bald Eagle lived up to the American dream by defying extinction.

At the dawn of the 20th century, the majestic bird of prey found itself in peril, and not from natural causes. The Bald Eagle’s plight resulted from man-made difficulties. In the early years, hunting and logging threatened the birds, then the pesticide DDT came onto the scene. DDT ended up in the eagles’ food and caused them to lay weak, inviable eggs. Thus, the eagle population plummeted.

Americans scrambled to protect their favorite bird. The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 outlawed the shooting, poisoning, or killing of Bald Eagles, DDT was banned, and Bald Eagles became one of the first species protected under the new Endangered Species Act of 1973.

In 2007, the government removed them from the endangered species list, proving the success of environmental programs and offering hope to species on the brink.

While Bald Eagles escaped extinction, many other species haven’t been so lucky. Habitat destruction, human construction, poaching, and even climate change close in on animals every day, threatening the balance of our interconnected ecosystem. Here’s an overview of what we’re doing to protect endangered species and what else we could be doing.

What does it mean to be an endangered species?

Here’s a quick rundown on how we define endangered species.

The Basics

“Endangered” is an official government designation created by the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Animals who earn the title:

• Receive protection from potentially harmful federal activities, meaning that agencies have to consider endangered species in their authorization and funding decisions;
• Can’t be transported, sold, or “taken,” which bans any activities that can kill or harm the animal like shooting, trapping, hunting, and pursuing;
• Become eligible for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recovery plans. The plans evaluate research and protocols to determine needs for successful species recovery; and,
• Could be supplied with habitats if needed, purchased by the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Protection is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a section of the Department of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.

How do animals get the designation?

Endangered species are simply species in imminent danger of becoming extinct. A “threatened” designation refers to species at risk for becoming endangered soon.

Common things that can endanger a species are:

• Destruction or alteration of habitat.
• Overuse for education, scientific, commercial, or recreational purposes.
• Disease.
• Predation.
• Any natural or man-made factors that affect survival, which could cover a number of human activities.

After establishing those factors, “candidates” for the list run through a thorough review process that could take up to two years. In that time, experts submit biological information on the species that will help inform the decision. In the review, experts consider the severity of the threat, how soon the extinction could happen, and the uniqueness of the species. You can check out the current list of candidates here.

Once a species gets on the list, the authorities reevaluate that case every five years to see if a classification should be removed or changed.

The ESA is an American law, yet many endangered species like tigers and gorillas aren’t in the United States. In these cases, the ESA enforces bans and limits on trade in endangered animal body parts.

Opposition to the Current Policies

Protecting species often clashes with other interests. Recently, the government listed the Long-Eared Bat as a threatened species. But farming, timber, oil, and gas interest groups claimed that protecting the bat restricts them from certain practices and would drive up costs of their operations. Use of wind turbines, natural gas wells, and pesticides would all be restricted in order to protect the bat. Organizations plan to continue voicing their concerns as the threatened designation moves toward enforcement next month.

Listen to more about the controversy via NPR:

Problems With the Current Policies 

Like the Bald Eagle, some species have recovered enough to be removed from the endangered species list. Sadly, those successes are mere droplets in an entire ocean of worry. Many of the vulnerable species at risk of extinction don’t even make it on to the endangered species list and have no other source of protection. For example, according to the World Wildlife Federation’s (WWF) 2014 Living Planet Report, the populations of all vertebrate species have declined by 52 percent in the last 40 years.

Extinction means more than the life or death of a given species, as many animals influence our ecosystem, economy, and food security in ways we can’t realize until they’re gone. The loss of one species could create a devastating domino effect. The case of the Bonobo, a type of chimpanzee, makes a perfect example of what can happen when species’ decimation continues unchecked.

The Plight of the Bonobo

Bonobos face extinction as a result of poaching from the bushmeat trade. But Bonobos themselves aren’t the only thing that we need to worry about when considering their extinction. Studies have found that a majority of plants and trees in the Democratic Republic of the Congo need Bonobos to spread their seeds and will not reproduce unless their seeds are first “processed” by the Bonobo; this means that the Bonobos’ stomach acids break down hard seed coatings and enable them to sprout. Plant growth depends on each Bonobo. On average, every Bonobo processes about 11.6 million seeds in its lifetime.

Their extinction would set off a chain reaction: loss of trees and plants, loss of other species that lived among the trees and plants, and eventually we’d reach a stillness known as empty forest syndrome, where large vertebrate populations dwindle to nothing. According to biologist David Beaune, the same thing could happen in ecosystems that unknowingly rely on other chimpanzees, gorillas, and apes that “process” and spread seeds.

U.S. Protective Actions

Last year, President Obama signed an executive order for a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking to address the illegal wildlife trade. The strategy emphasized three priorities:

1. Strengthening enforcement of wildlife trafficking bans.
2. Cutting the illegal wildlife trade at home and abroad.
3. Strengthening partnerships in efforts to combat illegal wildlife trade and poaching.

Altogether, the strategy cracks down on the market for illegal wildlife trade as a strategy to protect animals. As Harrison Ford says in the PSA below, “When the buying stops, the killing does too.”

In February 2015, the Departments of State, Justice, and the Interior released the Implementation Plan for the strategy, which outlines specific steps that the President’s Task Force on Combating Wildlife Trafficking need to take and how its progress will be measured. You can access the full plan to read about the specific steps proposed to address the three strategic priorities bulleted above.

One example of the strategy at work is Operation Crash, a proactive criminal enforcement initiative that aims to search and reprimand people who hunt and kill rhinos or traffic their horns. Operation Crash has made 26 arrests and convicted 18 perpetrators. You can check out examples of the convictions here.

While this is excellent progress, the National Wildlife Federation recommends full participation in recovery programs and encourages stakeholders to produce measurable recovery targets that go beyond the safety net features of the Endangered Species Act. It acknowledges the need to stop the killing, but wants to see more proactive recovery assistance options.

Is “de-extinction” possible?

In the introduction of the WWF Living Planet Report 2014, Director General Marco Lambertini encourages people to take up the difficult but crucial responsibility of protecting wildlife.

Difficult, certainly, but not impossible – because it is in ourselves, who have caused the problem, that we can find the solution. Now we must work to ensure that the upcoming generation can seize the opportunity that we have so far failed to grasp, to close this destructive chapter in our history, and build a future where people can live and prosper in harmony with nature. We are all connected – and collectively, we have the potential to create the solutions that will safeguard the future of this, our one and only planet.

After all, we can’t bring species back once they’re gone. Or can we?

In the following video, writer Stewart Brand discusses the possibilities of a “dawn of de-extinction,” the reality of bringing species back from well beyond the brink by reassembling an entire genome using ancient DNA.  He discusses how geneticist George Church has created a multiplex automated genome engineering machine that tests ancient DNA combinations for viability in living organisms. Combinations that win can be used to synthetically hybridize the genome of an extinct species with the genome of its closest living relative.

So theoretically, we might be able to resurrect lost species. But in the meantime, we should focus on protecting the species that are still around.

Resources

Primary

White House: National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking & Commercial Ban on Trade in Elephant Ivory

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Listing a Species as Threatened or Endangered

U.S. Department of State: Presidential Task Force Releases Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking

U.S. Department of Justice: The Fight Against Wildlife Trafficking

Additional

National Geographic: Bald Eagles Soar Off Endangered Species List, But Will Act Be Weakened?

World Wildlife Federation: Living Planet Report 2014

National Wildlife Federation: Keeping the Endangered Species Act Strong

Oryx Journal: What Would Happen to the Trees and Lianas if Apes Disappeared?

Scientific American: If Apes Go Extinct, So Could Entire Forests

Society of Environmental Journalists: The Endangered Species Act at 40: Forty Things Journalists Should Know

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endangered Species Protections: Are We Doing Enough? 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.