The benefits — and the drawbacks — of the Endangered Species Act have been witnessed in the Northwest throughout the past four decades. Recovery of the bald eagle has been so robust that in 2016 the majestic bird was removed from Washington state’s list of protected species. On the other hand, political wrangling over spotted owl habitat during the 1980s devastated the region’s logging industry.
While we can understand the need for balance in applying the 1973 federal law, recent moves by the Trump administration to undermine the act go too far and should be opposed.
The Endangered Species Act was signed by President Nixon after passing the House of Representatives by a vote of 355-4, reflecting what was growing awareness of the damage humans were doing to their environment. Since then, the act has played a critical role in saving species such as the bald eagle, grizzly bear and gray wolf. In 1975, when grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem were listed as threatened, there were fewer than 200 of them; now, there are an estimated 700 grizzlies in Yellowstone National Park.
Critics of the law suggest that it is ineffective, but evidence suggests otherwise. The thought of the bald eagle or the grizzly bear now being extinct in the United States should be anathema to anybody who takes a long-range view of environmental issues.
Therein lies the problem with the administration’s approach to the Endangered Species Act. As it too often does with policy issues, the administration is embracing short-term gains with little regard to the kind of world we will leave for future generations.
The Interior Department headed by Ryan Zinke recently announced proposals that would undermine the act and further endanger already threatened species. The statute currently demands that decisions about whether to list a species be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” and be “without reference to possible economic or other impacts.” Zinke’s proposal would eliminate that second phrase, opening protected lands for extraction industries.
Another proposal would end blanket protections for listed species and judge them on a case-by-case basis, and a third would make it more difficult for species to be listed. Meanwhile, Congress is considering a variety of measures that would further undermine the Endangered Species Act.
Taken together, this approach continues the administration’s persistent pursuit of an anti-science agenda that gives credence to mining, oil and coal interests rather than scientific knowledge.
Part of this is a result of how the act has been used over the years. Often employed as a roadblock of last resort to halt development and economic interests, the act has engendered opposition in some circles. The spotted owl is a case in point, with the Endangered Species Act being used to halt logging of old-growth forests. It turned out that a larger threat to the Northern Spotted Owl is the barred owl, leading to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program in which barred owls are killed to protect the spotted owl. Overall, it represents a case of overly aggressive environmental management that defies common sense.
Other case studies also point out the need for adjustments to the Endangered Species Act. But the Trump administration’s demonstrated lack of interest in the environment is reason for suspicion. Eschewing science for the benefit of extraction industries will cause long-term environmental damage that can never be undone.
