The Future of the Endangered Species Act

On February 15^th, 2017 the U.S. Senate Environment Public Works Committee held an oversight hearing regarding the “modernization” to the Endangered Species Act.   I put the word modernization in quotations for my own biased opinions on the Senates lack of understanding what modernization means as far as environmental impact is concerned.  However, for the sake of this learning experience, I am going to save my opinions and present you with the facts on the events of the meeting and the agenda of the senate vs. the agenda of the ESA.  

 

The point of the meeting is that, as I believe has been talked about at least once on this blog previously, the U.S. Senate is looking to overhaul the Endangered Species Act by changing regulations, changing funding, and impacting our environment one way or another: either for good or for bad.

In case you need a quick little reminder, the Endangered Species Act, regulated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, came to being at the end of 1973 to protect and conserve species that are threatened to be endangered or are endangered already. This includes the conservation of their habitats throughout a significant portion of their range.  Since 1984, the ESA has included that all habitats deemed crucial to the survival of a species on the list be protected by the federal law.  While President Obama was in office, he extended that rule to protect land that could be used for the rehabilitation of endangered species in the future.

To put it simply, the republicans aren’t entirely pleased with the rules on land protection that the ESA provides.  They are looking to “eliminate the red tape and bureaucratic burdens that have been impacting the ability to create jobs.” (Fears, 2017).  In other words, they believe that the ESA is too highly regulated and constricting, and therefore is preventing the creation of more jobs in America—one of President Trumps’ main focuses.  Senator John Barrasso, a republican from Wyoming, led the two hour meeting stating that the EPA as it stands just doesn’t work as it impedes on land management plans and disrupts housing development and cattle grazing (Fears, 2017).

Now, it’s important to point out right now that even the Senate is split on what they want to DO with the ESA.  Some want to revoke the act completely while others have pointed out that it’s been “hijacked” and is nothing more than an attempt at land grabbing.  After all, land is needed in order to preserve habitat and species, so of course those of us in the conservation field want all the land we can get.

What does Senator Barrasso suggest we do?  He would like to make it easier to develop on wilderness areas.  To do this, federal land would be turned over to the states to control.  After all, wouldn’t the state know best how to deal with their land?  This could have some fatal flaws to it, the destruction of critical habitats for various species, some which may already be endangered. This would also open up the potential for oil and gas drilling on land that was once protected by the ESA.  We all know that the fundamental reason for species going extinct is from habitat loss, farming, oil and gas development, among other, similar reasons. 

So I guess the real question comes down to the fact of the matter of: do we still need the ESA as it is?  Do we still need the land for conservation?  Does the ESA even work?

Today about 2,270 species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA; threatened species being defines as those likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.  Of the 1,652 species that have been listed as endangered, around 47 of them have been removed from the list.  

Senator James M. Inhofe, a republican from Oklahoma, pointed out during the meeting that given that small percentage of “successes” the ESA should be reconsidered as a hole since it is clearly not successful.

That’s not the only issue with the act. The ESA does not completely permit habitat loss from occurring.  Habitats are lawfully allowed to be destroyed so long as it does not “jeopardize” species survival, which have been found to be vague and difficult to determine criteria.  There are also a few other rules that allow land to still be developed on with the current regulations of the ESA including rules stating that habitats may be destroyed so long as landowners offset those losses (Parenteau 2017). 

So overall, there’s no doubt that the ESA has some flaws.  Recovery takes a long time, and the Act certainly can be improved upon.

But is that any reason to get rid of it completely or change it so drastically?

The ESA has done some serious work to conserve our endangered species.  After all, since its birth only 30 species have disappeared after being placed on the list.  So this means that nearly every other species placed on that list has been saved from disappearing into oblivion.  In fact, 93% of listed species are stable or improving in numbers. The ESA is saving our biodiversity, our ecosystem, and maintaining the lives WE live on this planet as well.  Because let’s be honest, I don’t need to tell you guys what’s going to happen to us if we lose the bee population, right?

All endangered species depend on the ESA to makes sure they have safe habitats to live in and the protection of their quality of life- whether that is in the wild or in captivity where they are actively being bred for population increase and hopefully for release.  

Does the ESA need some work? Absolutely. Do we need new regulations on the land management?  Yes.  Ideas used by other countries such as privatizing the protection of land could in fact help with this if done correctly.  Of course there are also plenty of other ideas out there that could also help with regulation.  So yes, change the regulation of the ESA laws, it’s been done many times before, but cutting funding for the ESA and ignoring our endangered species completely is not the answer. 

I’m going to leave this blog with a quote from the Senate hearing.  This is from the President of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and a former Service Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Daniel Ashe who spoke during the meeting. “Although we have made significant progress in saving endangered species, this work is far from done.  Species protection and conservation requires long-term commitment by all of us. It is through the ongoing work related to species recovery plans that we will conserve these species for future generations… We need to be vigilant. There is certainly risk and potential danger. My bottom line advice…is that any effort to modernize the Act, must be based in a consensus objective to improve our ability to save species from extinction.” 

Outside sources (and definitely articles you should read):

Fears, D. (2017). The Endangered Species Act may be heading for the threatened list. This hearing confirmed it.  The Washington Post. < https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/the-endangered-species-act-may-be-heading-for-the-threatened-list-this-hearing-confirmed-it/?utm_term=.c1a1e3407d40>

Parenteau, P. (2017). Counterpoint: Don’t Kill the Endangered Species Act. Inside Sources. < http://www.insidesources.com/counterpoint-dont-kill-endangered-species-act/>

The L.A. Times Editorial Staff. (2017). With this congress, the Endangered Species Act itself might be Endangered.  The LA Times.  < http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-endangered-species-act-congress-trump-eagle-condor-20170221-story.html>

Wells, S. (2017).  Is the Endangered Species Act in Danger of Going Extinct?  One Green Planet. < http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/endangered-species-act-in-danger/>

The Summary of Ashe’s address to the Senate: https://www.aza.org/aza-news-releases/posts/ashe-to-congress-aza-accredited-zoos-aquariums-important-part-of-the-endangered-species-acts-past-fu

Kaitlin is a recent Penn State Graduate who has worked with the conservation of various endangered species including San Clemente Loggerhead Shrikes, Channel Island Foxes (which were delisted in August of 2016), and African Penguins.