The View from Sapsucker Woods

Imagine the government weakening, then eliminating, highway laws that set speed limits on motor vehicles. "After all," supporters would argue, "these laws aren't working. Thousands of people are still dying on our highways because of speeding." Imagine doctors withholding medicine from all but the gravely ill patients, explaining, "We shouldn't treat patients until they actually begin to die." Imagine police departments compensating criminals for every thwarted crime, on the grounds that the perpetrators were being robbed of potential income. Arguments akin to these are among those offered in support of a bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (HR 3824, passed by a vote of 229 to 193). If enacted into law, this bill would starve--and ultimately destroy--the single most important act of environmental legislation in history.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), signed by Richard Nixon in 1973, declared that the government and citizens of the United States shall do what is reasonably within our power to keep any native species from going extinct in our country. Over the ensuing 30 years more than 1,300 species were officially listed as Endangered and Threatened, and populations of more than half of these have either remained stable or begun to increase since listing.* Even more important, and contrary to statements often made by opponents of the ESA, the process works extremely well. More than two thirds of the species that have been on the Endangered Species list for 12 years or more are showing signs of recovery. Only 44 listed species (3 percent) are now classified as extinct.

The Black-capped Vireo is one of 77 bird species listed as Endangered in the United States.

Illustration by John W. Fitzpatrick

The American public overwhelmingly supports retention of the ESA (more than 80 percent according to some polls). Nevertheless, HR3824 contains a sunset clause that would end the law in 10 years. It also removes restrictions on pesticide use that threatens rare species, erects copious bureaucratic hurdles to the listing and recovery process, deletes designation of "critical habitat," limits the amount of time provided for review of land use proposals, and gives political appointees authority to declare how species are (or are not) protected. The new rules would remove most of the current protection afforded species designated as Threatened--thereby allowing them to decline further until they get reclassified as Endangered (i.e., the gravely ill patient). Indeed, the proposed law would remove "recovery" from the stated goals of the ESA altogether, making mere "survival" the standard for success. Finally, the bill requires financial compensation to anyone claiming to suffer an economic impact as a result of obeying the law.

Study after study confirms the correctness of the ESA's fundamental assumptions. As clearly stated in its original language (Section 2b), the act's purpose is to protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. Endangered species do not represent mere curiosities to be preserved by convenience, like so many museum specimens. Besides being our most effective indicators of broad-scale environmental damage and degradation, they also demonstrate our capacity as managers of the earth to live side by side with natural systems. The latter simply requires that we make the effort. The ESA can be improved, most notably by adding incentive provisions, but its principle features deserve canonization, not damnation.

--John W. Fitzpatrick, Louis Agassiz Fuertes Director

*Male, T. D. and Bean, M. J. 2005. Measuring progress in U.S. endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8:986–992. www.backfromthebrink.org/inthespotlight.cfm?subnav=story&ContentID=4716

For permission to reprint all or part of this article, please contact Laura Erickson, editor, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Rd., Ithaca, NY, 14850. Phone: (607) 254-1114. email: lle24@cornell.edu