Leave the Endangered Species Act Alone
The Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proposed changes to section 424.11 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are a bad idea . Right now, this section states that species will be added and removed from the ESA, “solely upon biological criteria and to prevent non-biological considerations from affecting such decisions.” FWS proposes to remove the phrase that follows, “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.” By adjusting the wording in this way, FWS hopes to add economic considerations to species listing decisions.
I believe that this addition would add some transparency to FWS’s listing decisions. By informing the public of what endangered species listings mean in economic terms, they may not want the listing to occur. For example, many people argue whether or not wolves should be protected in and around Yellowstone National Park (Wielgus, R and Peebles, A. (2014), Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations. PLOS ONE.). Many ranchers are against protecting wolves because they claim that wolves are attacking their livestock, their main source of economic income. By protecting the wolves, they think that they are putting their financial well-being at risk. Another example of listing a species as endangered regardless of economic impact can be seen in 2001 at the Klamath River Basin. Here, the Bureau of Reclamation denied local farmer’s use of water for irrigation due to three fish species enlisted to the Endangered Species Act that resided in the local water. (CARLETON, H. B. The Endangered Species Act : Primer, Evaluation and Prospects. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc, 2009). This lead to major economic deficit for the farmers. It makes sense to look at non-biological factors when adding a species to the Endangered Species list . There are, however cons to this addition.
Despite the economic sense, there are many potential problems with these proposed changes to the ESA. Changing the wording and removing the phrase “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination” is likely to give the fossil fuel industry more of a say regarding what species may make the list and which do not—almost certainly an implicit goal of the proposed changes, given the track record of FWS’s parent agency, the U.S. Department of Interior under Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. When a species is added to the Endangered Species list, efforts are made to protect the species, and the ecosystem in which it lives. If a listed species lives in an ecosystem that a fossil fuel company uses or desires to extract resources, then there is likely to be a conflict of interest, and the proposed changes to section 424 will allow FWS to acquiesce to the industry’s desires. An example of this behavior that is now in the news is the Interior Department’s proposed changes to the interagency sage grouse conservation plan throughout the American west(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/climate/trump-sage-grouse-oil.html[WR1] ). This species resides in a habitat where drilling and mining operations are very common.
The biggest reason that the Trump Administration wants to change the wording of the ESA is because they perceive the act as an impediment to oil and gas devleopment, and thus to the oil and gas industry’s potential income. Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, speaking at an ESA hearing last year, demonstrated this view: “States, counties, wildlife managers, home builders, construction companies, farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders are all making it clear that the Endangered Species Act is not working today.” (http://time.com/5347260/endangered-species-act-reform/). Wyoming is among the least friendly states in the nation to the ESA and its protections, and is at the center of the sage grouse controversy.
It is important to realize that protecting endangered species is beneficial to the economy. The ecosystem services that many of these species provide have great economic benefit. An example is honeybees pollinating commercial crops like fruits and vegetables. (http://time.com/5347260/endangered-species-act-reform/). This leads to greater crop yields and therefore leads to a greater farming economy. Studies have been performed to assess the financial benefit associated with protected species. One study found that 1.6 trillion dollars are established by ecosystem services, and that 32 billion of this total was from National Wildlife Refuges under the Endangered Species Act. (https://www.fws.gov/refuges/news/pdfs/TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation[1].pdf)
This not the time to change the Endangered Species Act. Environmental protection and economic growth need to be managed together. Changing the wording of the ESA will give the fossil fuel industry power over which species will be listed based on their economic worth in comparison to fossil fuels—an inherently skewed metric, given the current administration’s behavior. Building the economy without simultaneously protecting the environment will be harmful to the American people, just as protecting the environment and ignoring economic impacts would be. Finding a balance is the only way to ensure that the environment and the American citizens will coexist successfully. Given the current political climate, maintaining the ESA’s strong protections is the right decision.