TheDanold
Unimatrix
"THE delta smelt lives in brackish water, eats zooplankton and usually grows no longer than three inches (7.6 cm). It is not the sort of creature that environmentalists put on posters. But the little fish may prove as potent a symbol of America's odd approach to conservation as the California condor or the grey wolf. On August 31st a federal judge ruled that giant pumps supplying water to much of southern California were killing the smelt, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act. Those pumps will now have to shut down for much of the year, reducing water output by up to a third.
When the Endangered Species Act was signed in 1973, it was expected to protect charismatic fauna such as the bald eagle and Yellowstone's grizzly bears. These days it covers such obscure life-forms as the Stock Island tree snail, the Banbury Springs limpet and the triple-ribbed milk-vetch, along with 1,348 other animals and plants. In the absence of other powerful laws, it has become the chief weapon of environmentalists—and the bane of landowners and property-rights activists.
The act's most powerful tool is the power to designate “critical habitats”, in which development, farming and mining are greatly restricted. The designation of much of Oregon as a critical habitat for the northern spotted owl in 1992 led to restrictions on logging and the loss of some 10,000 jobs. Las Vegas's explosive growth has been slowed by the desert tortoise and the discovery of two rare plants. Last month Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma blamed the American burying beetle for hampering energy production in his state.
Some say the law isn't very useful. Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation notes that few species come off the threatened or endangered list—just 47 since 1973, the majority because they became extinct or were found thriving elsewhere. Some celebrated recoveries, like that of the bald eagle, occurred largely thanks to the banning of the insecticide DDT, rather than to the act. Worse, the law may actually speed up extinctions. Farmers have an incentive to destroy protected species before the biologists find them—a practice known as “shoot, shovel and shut up”.
To the act's supporters, all this suggests that the law needs only to be enforced more strongly. Kieran Suckling of the Centre for Biological Diversity accuses the government of dragging its feet over listing species. A bigger problem, says Dale Goble of the University of Idaho, is that the law does nothing to help species before they become endangered. The Fish and Wildlife Service now spends so much time dealing with lawsuits that it often fails to consider species for protection until it is almost too late. At that point, the strictest measures are put in place.
For all its problems, few talk openly about scrapping the act. It enjoys a totemic status akin to the Civil Rights Act; to challenge it is political suicide. In 2005 Richard Pombo, a seven-term California congressman, tried to amend the law. Attacked in his Republican primary and the general election for his environmental record as well as his ties to Jack Abramoff, a disgraced lobbyist, Mr Pombo was booted out of office last year—the only congressman to lose his seat in California.
If it is not in serious danger of being abolished, the law is gradually being tamed. The Bush administration has tried to encourage, rather than force, landowners to preserve rare species and has created a kind of habitat-trading scheme. Knowing that they will suffer if species decline to the point where they must be listed as threatened, mining companies are learning to tread softly around creatures such as the sage grouse. Such compromises infuriate environmental purists. But, imperfect as they are, they represent the best hope for balancing the need to protect nature with the need to keep the water running. "
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9767816
I think the best approach is to remove the act as there is already a huge amount of land that is now nature preserves, that it is largely unneeded. For example, wolves may be then shot on private property reducing their numbers (which happens anyway, just not reported), but there are far more than enough wolves in Yellowstone park that the species would never go extinct.
If not, insects should definitely be removed from the list.
What are your thoughts?
When the Endangered Species Act was signed in 1973, it was expected to protect charismatic fauna such as the bald eagle and Yellowstone's grizzly bears. These days it covers such obscure life-forms as the Stock Island tree snail, the Banbury Springs limpet and the triple-ribbed milk-vetch, along with 1,348 other animals and plants. In the absence of other powerful laws, it has become the chief weapon of environmentalists—and the bane of landowners and property-rights activists.
The act's most powerful tool is the power to designate “critical habitats”, in which development, farming and mining are greatly restricted. The designation of much of Oregon as a critical habitat for the northern spotted owl in 1992 led to restrictions on logging and the loss of some 10,000 jobs. Las Vegas's explosive growth has been slowed by the desert tortoise and the discovery of two rare plants. Last month Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma blamed the American burying beetle for hampering energy production in his state.
Some say the law isn't very useful. Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation notes that few species come off the threatened or endangered list—just 47 since 1973, the majority because they became extinct or were found thriving elsewhere. Some celebrated recoveries, like that of the bald eagle, occurred largely thanks to the banning of the insecticide DDT, rather than to the act. Worse, the law may actually speed up extinctions. Farmers have an incentive to destroy protected species before the biologists find them—a practice known as “shoot, shovel and shut up”.
To the act's supporters, all this suggests that the law needs only to be enforced more strongly. Kieran Suckling of the Centre for Biological Diversity accuses the government of dragging its feet over listing species. A bigger problem, says Dale Goble of the University of Idaho, is that the law does nothing to help species before they become endangered. The Fish and Wildlife Service now spends so much time dealing with lawsuits that it often fails to consider species for protection until it is almost too late. At that point, the strictest measures are put in place.
For all its problems, few talk openly about scrapping the act. It enjoys a totemic status akin to the Civil Rights Act; to challenge it is political suicide. In 2005 Richard Pombo, a seven-term California congressman, tried to amend the law. Attacked in his Republican primary and the general election for his environmental record as well as his ties to Jack Abramoff, a disgraced lobbyist, Mr Pombo was booted out of office last year—the only congressman to lose his seat in California.
If it is not in serious danger of being abolished, the law is gradually being tamed. The Bush administration has tried to encourage, rather than force, landowners to preserve rare species and has created a kind of habitat-trading scheme. Knowing that they will suffer if species decline to the point where they must be listed as threatened, mining companies are learning to tread softly around creatures such as the sage grouse. Such compromises infuriate environmental purists. But, imperfect as they are, they represent the best hope for balancing the need to protect nature with the need to keep the water running. "
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9767816
I think the best approach is to remove the act as there is already a huge amount of land that is now nature preserves, that it is largely unneeded. For example, wolves may be then shot on private property reducing their numbers (which happens anyway, just not reported), but there are far more than enough wolves in Yellowstone park that the species would never go extinct.
If not, insects should definitely be removed from the list.
What are your thoughts?
