Endangered Species Act

Tim Iverson

(10/2018) The Endangered Species Act may very well be endangered itself. Originally passed with sweeping bipartisan support and signed by a republican president, today it finds itself at odds and under attack from the White House, Department of Interior, Congress, and monied interests. For 45 years the Endangered Species Act was the bulwark between the progress of development and the native species of plants and animals eeking out an existence among an ever increasing humanity.

Since its passage in 1973 it has been credited for the rehabilitation of iconic animal species such as the Bald Eagle, American Alligator, West Indian Manatee, Green Sea Turtle, Grizzly Bear, Gray Wolf, and more. Among the general public the Endangered Species Act polls with an 83% approval rate nationwide. The law isn’t without its detractors though. Those opposing the law contest that the regulations prevent landowners and major industries from making full use of their land. Compliance with the law can be costly and can even entirely prevent some activities from taking place at all.

Beginning in June 2018, the Trump administration began introducing alterations and amendments to the existing legislative and regulatory framework. The proposed amendments are still under consideration, but are largely part of a broad package being introduced that favor business and loosen regulatory authority. WIth midterms looming legislative changes need to occur quick, otherwise a partisan shift might occur and significant change could be stymied.

The Department of the Interior has introduced a flurry of regulatory changes which aim to reduce the scope of the law. One amendment to the act states that the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA (the agencies responsible for maintaining the Endangered Species List) could consider economic impact in regards to adding species to the list of protected animals. The current framework explicitly states, "without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination," listings must be based solely on the best possible science and data available. The proposed change would strike that clause.

The phrase "foreseeable future" is being redefined by another proposal. "Any species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future," is the current legal classification for threatened species (a level just below endangered). This passage allows for a protection status similar to endangered species. The new rule change outlines, "The Services will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis... The Services will avoid speculating as to what is hypothetically possible." Protections will not necessarily be granted, and a more precise definition of what the foreseeable future means long term impacts of a changing climate may not be taken into account when assessing a species protection considerations.

This last change is a bit of a double edged sword for environmentalists. Even proponents of the act recognize the need for changes, and this one could mean more effective government management and recovery techniques could be applied or absolutely no action could be taken.

45 years after the Endangered Species Act became law it has been a success overall. Several notable species have made full recoveries and many more have been prevented from outright extinctions. While the full recoveries of species, like the Bald Eagle, can be attributed to provisions outlined in the Endangered Species Act those successes were likely low-hanging fruit. In other words, simple fixes for simple problems. Banning DDT and over hunting helped the populations of birds, like eagles, and reptiles, like the American Alligator, rebound to the point that they are once again common place in their home ranges. Other animals provided protections like the Western Spotted Owl, which has been a rallying point for environmentalists and land rights activities alike for decades, face a much tougher knot to untangle.

The Endangered Species Act has been most successful at protecting land. Protecting land that species on the brink of extinction use is an obvious necessity. However, precise protections and more intricate solutions are required for some species. The Western Spotted Owl has spent decades on the Endangered Species List with little progress to show for it. The owl is a victim of human progress. We’ve gone too far and disrupted its habitat to the point it can no longer find suitable food, housing, or conditions. To compound the problem, the Barred Owl has expanded its range across the continent to the detriment of the Western Spotted Owl, again as a result of human encroachment and land use changes. The Barred Owl is bigger, more aggressive, and out competes the Western Spotted Owl for valuable space and food within their overlapping habitats. Simple land preservation isn’t going to solve this problem. More individualized intensive management is required for species like this and others.

Threats to the Endangered Species Act are coming from outside the administration, as well. The House of Representatives has already passed an amendment, attached to the National Defense Authorization Act spending bill (the Pentagon’s budget), but has still yet to be adopted by the Senate. The amendments outline that the Greater Sage Grouse, the Lesser Prairie Chicken, and the American Burying Beetle can not be placed onto the Endangered Species List for at least 10 years. All three of these animals currently live in habitat envied by ranching or oil interests.

In a representative democracy your voice is heard primarily through the ballot box, but there are other meaningful ways to voice opinions. As of this writing the National Defense Authorization Act is still pending, by reaching out to your senator the proposed amendments can be altered or removed. The regulatory changes being put forth by the Department of Interior are subject to a 60-90 day review and public comment period. By going to Regulations.gov and searching for Endangered Species Act you’ll find up to 30 proposed amendments and counting that are pending and require public input. A legitimate debate can be had about the efficacy and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, but the greater good should be measured by data not dollars.