My article on the Endangered Species Act can be found here. The core of the argument is that the science and politics of the current Endangered Species Act is just wrong.
A few comments to get things moving: I agree that the ESA is broken. The example of the gray wolf is particularly telling; from my understanding, most residents of rural areas near wolf habitats consider them a nuisance at best, and more often a predator and a threat. No wolf-loving environmentalist has never had to tolerate this "noble and beautiful animal" preying on his or her main source of income. (Did you ever notice that animal protection posters always have cute or pretty animals like wolves or birds and butterflies, but ignore the more creepy ones like bats?)
The method for determining the status of a species is very arbitrary. The Secretary of Commerce makes a decision "...solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species..." (Section 4(b)) Scientific and commercial data can be found to support any conclusion a person wants, and there is no qualification on what is "the best scientific and commercial data".
The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior can pick and choose what they want to preserve based on any criteria they like, and you can bet they'll focus on job security (agree with the politics of the president) over helping the environment or protecting a species that's actually endangered.
1 Comments:
A few comments to get things moving:
I agree that the ESA is broken. The example of the gray wolf is particularly telling; from my understanding, most residents of rural areas near wolf habitats consider them a nuisance at best, and more often a predator and a threat. No wolf-loving environmentalist has never had to tolerate this "noble and beautiful animal" preying on his or her main source of income. (Did you ever notice that animal protection posters always have cute or pretty animals like wolves or birds and butterflies, but ignore the more creepy ones like bats?)
Here's a link to the section of the Endangered Species Act that determines whether a species is endangered or threatened.
The method for determining the status of a species is very arbitrary. The Secretary of Commerce makes a decision "...solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species..." (Section 4(b)) Scientific and commercial data can be found to support any conclusion a person wants, and there is no qualification on what is "the best scientific and commercial data".
The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior can pick and choose what they want to preserve based on any criteria they like, and you can bet they'll focus on job security (agree with the politics of the president) over helping the environment or protecting a species that's actually endangered.
Post a Comment
<< Home