March
1995
Disappearing
Act: The Future of the Endangered Species Act
By Kathleen Casey
|
|
|
It’s natural to be aghast at acts that inflict
direct pain on an individual — human or animal. We cringe at the
pictures: a trapped fur-bearing animal, a deer’s limp body slumped
over a 4x4; the branding of a cow’s face. These images force a
reaction, and, possibly, action.
Yet there’s a tendency in human nature to lose sight of an atrocity
when it becomes once or twice — or many times — removed
from the actual harm done. The danger becomes less immediate, less dramatic;
the action less urgent. But activities that may appear harmless are
degrading ecosystems and killing life on an unimaginable scale.
There’s a crisis, but no drama.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is our most powerful safeguard against
the complete pillage of our wilderness areas in the United States, and
we are going to lose it soon. Congress is hacking away at our dying
Act from every side. From cutting funding, to dismantling the Federal
system and leaving authority up to the states, there is little the Republicans
want to leave laying around.
The Act, they say, causes many problems. Developers, ranchers, oil drillers,
miners, water-hungry municipalities, loggers, manufacturers and farmers,
may be inconvenienced. The provisions in the Act make their lives complicated
because it does not allow them to indiscriminately pollute, dam rivers,
tear down forests etc. So, the ESA is unpopular.
Currently, legislators are developing very creative avenues around the
safety net the rest of us humans rely on for clean air, water and wild
places. Congress has already passed “non-funded mandates,” which
leaves authority over decisions and financing to already-burdened states.
In many cases, many ecosystems do not conform to state boundaries.
With the proposed policies, listing a species as endangered (which would
result in preventing further damage to its habitat and in developing
a rescue plan), would be so complicated, the animal would probably be
extinct long before the paperwork was processed. Policies such as “takings”,
where landowners would be compensated for any significant loss to the
value of their property as a result of evoking the ESA, would bankrupt
any government. We would be paying polluters not to pollute.
Another brainstorm is to have all applications to list a species be
“peer reviewed” by the community’s industry leaders.
Their motivation for acting is already low, but will be even more diminished
if the results of the cost/benefit analysis affect their bottom line
negatively. Their capability for measuring the value of a species such
as a mollusk or prairie grass or mouse is questionable. How does that
fit onto a balance sheet?
The result of these attacks on the Act is simple: extinction. Plain
and simple, we will start seeing species disappear at a much higher
rate. Their food supply, water and shelter will be stolen from under
them. Flight and migration routes will be closed. They will be poisoned
from pollution. The loss of a few can lead to an even faster extinction
of other species as the system becomes unbalanced and starts to unravel.
Much as we try to deny it, we are a part of the fabric that will be
sabotaged.
Just as it is morally wrong to slaughter an animal for fur or meat;
we do not have the right to alter the planet and end the existence of
a multitude of plants, animals, and micro-organisms.
We are in a race against time — call or write your Congressperson
right now! For more information call the Sierra Club Endangered Species
Working Group at Gail Colin-Goldstein, 718-575-4165. The Planet needs
you.
Kathleen Casey works for the Sierra Club of New
York City.
 |
|
|
 |
