Should the Endangered Species Act Be Strengthened - Essay Example

Environmental Issues Issue# 4: Should the Endangered Species Act Be Strengthened? Introduction “The Animals of the planet are in desperate peril. Without free animal life [I believe] we will lose the spiritual equivalent of oxygen” Alice Walker Several species of wildlife have been wiped off from the face of this earth in the past couple of decades and several others are being added every passing year. The earth is losing out on its natural elements either due to human activity or inactivity to preserve them. Environmental activists and advocates of a ‘sustainable world’ are increasingly raising alarm at the rate with which various species of wildlife are becoming extinct. The only way to prevent the endangered species from becoming extinct is to strive for the establishment of stringent laws or strengthening the existing laws, before the planet is completely disrobed of its rich wildlife species. The Endangered Species Act (ESA), is one such act, which was passed in the year 1973 with a view to empower the government to protect and preserve the imperiled species and the eco-systems on which they depend (FWS, 2010). However, three decades on, the act still finds itself as highly ineffective – and embroiled in a legal turmoil with two opposing sides i.e. the proponents and opponents of protection of endangered species; clashing head on to propagate their own self-interests. With the environmentalists on one hand and the industrialists and economists on the other, the Act which once witnessed overwhelming support is now caught between two contrasting and conflicting interests. The proponents believe that the act has not been implemented to its full potential and lacks adequate powers to preserve endangered species and hence needs to be strengthened to prevent them from becoming extinct (Rohlf 1991; Houck 1993; Bechtold 1999). The opponents, on the other hand, argue that the act is repressive and outdated and pose significant threat to the American economy and hence must be abolished (Mann and Plummer 1992; Sugg 1994). While environmentalists claim ‘preservation of ecosystems’ as a wider public interest, its total disregard on its likely impact on industrial growth and development has had a section of public up in arms, to advocate their cause. It is owing to such conflicting interests that this widely debated law has often been referred to as controversial in nature. Thesis Statement The ESA (1973) has been in the center of heated political and legal debates, with two contrasting parties seeking protection of self-interest; strengthening of laws in such a situation, might further increase the legal jeopardy, hence the law should be adequately amended and suitably modified rather than completely abolishing it. Brief overview of the Act: This act was passed by the Congress in the year 1973 as a move to preserve the rich natural heritage which is of “esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and its people” and prevent certain native plants and animals from the brink of extinction. Its basic objective is to safeguard and recover the endangered species and recreate the damaged ecosystems upon which the species depend. The law is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this act, species is listed as either endangered or threatened. - The term “Endangered” refers to a species which is considered to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and - The term “Threatened” refers to a species which is predicted / expected to become endangered within the foreseeable future Discussion The basic premise of the debate on whether or not the Act should be strengthened is a broader conflict involving safeguarding economic interests of one group and protecting the environment. The proponents argue that the destruction of natural habitat due to increasing human economic activities is largely responsible for endangering the lives of certain species and hence strict laws must be applied to prevent the spread of such activities, in the greater interest of the environment. The opponents on the other hand, argue that the current law does not take into consideration the huge financial losses and its likely impact on industrial growth. Hence abolishing certain stringent and highly unfair sections would help them in protecting their economic interests. This however is not agreeable to the environmentalists, leading to a clash between hard core conservationists and groups seeking industrial growth (Meltz 1994; Mann and Plummer 1995; Innes et al. 1998). The proponents of this act have argued that the law should not be abolished and must be strengthened instead, since it has proved to be highly effective in the past, and if strengthened it could lead to significant changes in the environment and help in improving the deteriorating status of wildlife. According to them, it is because of this act that various endangered species were saved from becoming extinct. Significant achievements such as the ban imposed by government on DDT which eventually led to the protection of the peregrine falcon have been made possible because of this act (Miller, Spoolman, 2008; Mongillo et al, 2000). Although the fact that the ESA has led to the preservation of various endangered species cannot be denied, it is beyond doubt that this success is achieved at a very high price. Implementation of laws under this act entails high costs to the owners of private lands which are instantly locked away by the government, if any endangered species is found in the region. Critics have also argued that in order to prevent high financial losses, several land owners have deliberately killed such species found on their land, in order to escape the economic burden, thus in turn leading to further damage (Goble, Davis, 2006). The critics of this act have raised serious concerns regarding the creation of wildlife reserves, which is allowed under this act. According to them, such large scale blocking of land, for environmental purposes defeats the larger public interest, and often leads to mass relocation of human population to other areas, leading to significant financial losses, loss of employment, shelter, as well as occupation – such as agriculture, mining etc. Thus, if the law is strengthened then the public interest would be at stake and reimbursement of economic losses would become highly impossible. They suggest that protection of wildlife species must not be at the cost of human lives, and some other alternative means of wildlife preservation must be devised (Goble, Davis, 2006). The environmentalists argue that wildlife reserves are indispensible to safeguard the endangered species since its fragmentation due to human activity has led to deterioration of biodiversity and harm the ecosystem. They actively support the creation of natural reserves for endangered species in the wider interest of preserving the environment. Furthermore, it is also argued that the law allows delisting of certain endangered species once they are considered safe from extinction. The critics of this act who are seeking abolition of this act on various grounds, claim that it has caused losses worth several billions and over and above that, it violates the Fifth amendment’s ban on "taking property without compensation by preventing property owners from developing their land when it contains habitat of an endangered species". Several suits have been filed so far, by the opponent groups including landowners, logging companies and other organizations claiming that the act violates their right to hold property (McKinney, Schoch, 2003). Conclusion It is clear from the above discussion that protection of endangered species is of utmost importance, considering the present plight of our ecosystems and the extent of damage which the entire human race will be made to suffer on account of disturbing the natural environmental balance. However, at the same time, protection of one’s civil rights – such as right to ownership of property is also of equal significance. Hence, in order to ensure the protection of human rights as well as the ecosystem, it is imperative for the government to bring in major transformations in the historic act, which has hardly witnessed any major overhaul since decades. The laws created and implemented in early seventies cannot be considered as consistent with contemporary times. For the law to function properly, major modifications must be made to strike a balance between both the disputing parties which may involve dropping certain stringent and unreasonable laws and replacing them with more fair ones. References: Bechtold, T., (1999). Listing the bull trout under the Endangered Species Act: the passive-aggressive strategy of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent protecting warranted species. Public Land and Resources Law Review 20: Pp. 99-129. Goble, D., Davis, F., (2006). The Endangered Species Act at thirty, Island press, Pp. 4 - 10 Houck, O, A., (1993). The Endangered Species Act and its implementation by the US Departments of Interior and Commerce. University of Colorado Law Review. 64(2):Pp. 277 Innes, R., Polasky, S., Tschirhart, J., (1998). Takings, compensation and endangered species protection on private lands. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(3):35. Mann, C., Plummer, M., (1992). The butterfly problem. Atlantic Monthly January 1992: Pp. 47-70 Mann, C., Plummer, M., (1995). Noah’s Choice: The Future of Endangered Species. NY McKinney, M. L., Schoch, R. M., (). Environmental science: systems and solutions, Jones & Bartlett Publication, Pp. 270 - 275 Meltz, R., (1994). Where the wild things are: the Endangered Species Act and private property. Environmental Law 24: Pp. 369-418. Miller, G. T., Spoolman, S. E., (2008). Essentials of Ecology, Cengage Learning Publication, Pp. 205 - 215 Mongillo, J. F., Warshaw, L., (2000). Encyclopedia of environmental science, University of Rochester Press, Pp. 70 - 71 Rohlf, D., (1991). Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work – and what to do about it. Conservation Biology 5(3): Pp. 273-282. Sugg, I, C., (1994). Caught in the Act: evaluating the Endangered Species Act. Cumberland Law Review 24: 1. FWS (2010). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Species program Accessed: December 1, 2010 from: Read More