Endangered Species Act Essay ⋆ Environment Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Endangered Species Act Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Widely regarded as the strongest and most significant piece of environmental legislation in the world, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) makes the protection of rare or imperiled species of plants and animals the highest priority of the U.S. federal government, at least in theory. Its core features are: a list of protected plants and animals; designation of “critical habitat” for listed species; mandatory compliance of all federal agencies and actions with the terms and objectives of the ESA; and the right of the public, through the National Environmental Policy Act, to petition for listing and to sue for compliance. Although the ESA’s overall efficacy is disputed and political wrangling about it is intense, it nevertheless enjoys widespread support among the general public.

The 1973 Act replaced two earlier and weaker laws passed in response to surging environmental sentiment following publication of Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring. The Endangered Species Preservation Act (1966) aimed to save the whooping crane and other charismatic birds such as the bald eagle by authorizing the Secretary of Interior to create a list of endangered domestic fish and wildlife and to spend a limited amount of money to buy habitat for their protection. The Endangered Species Conservation Act (1969) expanded the Secretary’s authority to cover foreign species and banned imports of products made from listed species, in hopes of protecting the world’s whales. A subsequent dispute with the Pentagon over listing the sperm whale-whose oil was used in submarines -helped motivate the stronger law and foreshadowed the legal bureaucratic dramas yet to come.

Congress passed the new law almost unanimously. It extended protection to plants and invertebrates as well as fish and wildlife; required the designation of critical habitat for all listed species; forbid federal agencies from authorizing, funding or carrying out any action that might jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or that “destroys or adversely modifies” critical habitat; and forbid any party from “taking” a listed animal species without a permit. It defined take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Penalties can rise to $50,000 and a year in prison, although prosecutions for “take” are virtually unheard of. Enforcement authority resides in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for land and freshwater species (the vast majority of the total); the Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service (now known as NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for marine and anadromous species.

Ever since its passage, the ESA has been prone to unintended consequences, political firestorms, and scientific uncertainty. That private landowners might intentionally kill a species or destroy its habitat just before listing (or “shoot, shovel, and shut up” after listing, as the saying goes) prompted amendments and administrative reforms through the 1980s and 1990s in search of mechanisms to indemnify landowners who conserve or create habitat. From the snail darter (which nearly killed a Tennessee Valley Authority dam halfway through construction) to the spotted owl (celebrated or blamed -rather misleadingly -for decimating the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest), the nation’s highest courts have consistently upheld the ESA’s constitutionality and its priority over political and economic expedience. Yet in several cases Congress has then exempted projects, suspended listings, or enfeebled enforcement.

The ambiguity and ambivalence can be traced directly to the act itself, which walks a thin, tortured line between the simple ideal of preventing extinctions and the complex political economy of on-the-ground preservation. The law stipulates, for example, that critical habitat be determined “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available,” yet it also directs the Secretary of Interior to consider “the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.” It then gives the Secretary discretion to exclude “any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits” of inclusion, unless he determines that exclusion will result in outright extinction. As more and more species have been listed over time-from fewer than 300 in 1980 to more than 1,300 in 2006 (excluding foreign species) – the limitations of scientific knowledge have become ever more acute, resulting in ever wider discretion. Only 475 listed species have had critical habitat designated in their behalf, even though habitat loss and modification dominate the causes of endangerment (for the U.S. excluding Hawaii and Puerto Rico, the top four are urbanization, agriculture, reservoirs and related water installations, and tourism and recreation development).

Bibliography:

Bonnie Burgess, Fate of the Wild: The Endangered Species Act and the Future of Biodiversity (University of Georgia Press, 2003);
Brian Czech and Paul Krausman, Endangered Species Act: History, Conservation Biology and Public Policy (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001);
Stanford Environmental Law Society, Endangered Species Act (Stanford University Press, 2000).