ESA: Species Savior

by Haley Brown

The stakes are high when it comes to conserving the earth's biodiversity; is the Endangered Species Act up to the task?

The bald eagle is one of the ESA's success stories.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is generally considered to be a positive program. A poll from 2015 showed that 90% of Americans support it. Since Richard Nixon passed it in 1973, the act has aimed to prevent animal and plant species from going extinct due to human interference.

Ecologists agree that legislation to conserve biodiversity is necessary—each species plays a unique role in its ecosystem, so the loss of any can be detrimental. However, ecologists disagree on the ESA's efficacy. Currently over 2000 species are on the list of endangered and threatened species covered by the act. 99% of species on the list are still around, which some see as a success. However, critics are more focused on the mere 1% of those that have been recovered and removed from the list. So how should we measure the ESA's success? With the condition the earth is in now and all the destruction humans have inflicted upon our natural neighbors, the ESA's success can really only be judged justly by the species it has kept from extinction.

ESA: Hopeless, or our last hope?

The passenger pigeon was once the most abundant bird in North America, at about 3 to 5 billion individuals. Accounts from settlers to the continent note that when the pigeons would pass overhead in their huge flocks, the sky would go completely dark. Yet, in 1914, the bird went extinct. People hunted them until the population was so small they couldn't reproduce. There were no kill limits (or those that were finally enacted were not well enforced), and no conservation efforts until it was too late.

We may never see a cloud of passenger pigeons again, but their extinction did lead to something beneficial: an awareness of the importance of conservation and a boom in environmentalism. After that point, countries began to pass acts that would help to conserve species from the same fate. In 1973, the United States passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which increased the level and scope of protection given to animals and plants considered endangered or threatened.

The passenger pigeon serves as a testament to humans' effects
 on nature and the need for conservation efforts

Since 1973, the ESA has seen multiple successes, some of the most famous being the recoveries of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. However, increasingly more species need attention as human population, pollution, and habitat destruction increase. The ESA does not have the funding to save every organism in danger of extinction.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries recently proposed changes to the ESA. Those changes include reducing spaces reserved for endangered species recovery and reducing the protection for threatened species. Some big businesses in this capitalist society would welcome fewer regulations on land use. It could also open up room for the ESA to even out their species focus.

The open platforms of the internet have allowed for myriad opinions to be shared on the proposition. Some think these changes will allow funding to be better distributed and focus on species with high potential for recovery. Others think these changes would leave regulations too open and, at best, slow the ESA's progress.

What most Americans seem to agree on (about 90%, actually, across both parties) is that we need an act like the ESA to keep our environment safe from ourselves. But is the current ESA, flawed as it may be, our best option? Will changing it further endanger our endangered species, repeating the tragedy of the passenger pigeon? Or do we need to alter our strategy to better prioritize conservation funds?

Image source

Hot Spots in Ecology

• Biodiversity
  Some ecologists claim that biodiversity has decreased in most of the Earth's land area past "safe limits." This "safe limit" supposedly marks the point at which ecosystems could no longer support human civilization. Critics say the limit—set by the Planetary Boundaries framework—is based on many assumptions, does not take into account the influence of invasive species, and could not easily take into account the complex interactions between species. (See "Earth's Biodiversity Has Fallen Below 'Safe' Levels? Ecologists Disagree.")

• Saving Endangered Species
  The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling, and species evolve and go extinct along with it. Most ecologists agree that we are currently going through an extreme, human-caused version of those historical extinction periods and should do what we can to save species from extinction. A few, even if they believe this mass extinction is human-caused, claim that it's pointless to go out our way to save endangered species; we should only worry about the extinction of our own species, and only save other species if it's convenient. (See "What is the point of saving endangered species?" and "We don't need to save endangered species. Extinction is part of evolution.")
• Journal Impact Factor
  Researchers often choose which scientific journal to submit their work to based on Journal Impact Factor (JIF), a value given to a journal based on its perceived quality. Libraries have also used it to choose which journals to subscribe to. JIF is probably the most prevalent rating system for journals, but many ecologists and other scientists criticize it for misrepresenting the quality of journals and articles. (See "The Journal Impact Factor and alternatives.")

Of these three controversies, I am most intrigued and emotionally affected by the second. I am a proponent for saving animal species; I love animals, and for as long as I can remember I've been taught that we need to save endangered species. All species contribute in some way to their ecosystem, and the loss of one can cause a drastic change. Additionally, myriad species are endangered because of habitat loss inflicted by humans. However, it is interesting to read anti-conservationist arguments from biologists. I can see where some of their claims make sense, which is surprising for me. Maybe what it comes down to is focusing on efforts that will best conserve the human species?