The Endangered Species Act Has Not Lived Up To Its Mandate
The Endangered Species Act Has Not Lived Up To Its Mandate
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has recovered only 12 of 1304 species in its 32-year history (Pombo, 2005). This is less than 1% rate of species recovery, a dismal success level for a federal government program financed by taxpayers. Also, it has been shown that the Endangered Species Act has been abused by various environmental organizations, and the bill itself is vaguely written. In "Biodiversity Baloney: Some Popular Myths Undone," the Union of Concerned Scientists believes that the Endangered Species Act has been a success, but there is more evidence in the contrary. For these and several more reasons, the Endangered Species Act has not lived up to its mandate, and needs to be reformed.
President Richard Milhous Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act on December 28, 1973 (Pombo, 2005). However, since this act was signed into law, there has been a controversy, with environmentalists set against property-rights activists, in a ceaseless debate about the ESA's costs and benefits. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) states in "Biodiversity Baloney" (2005) that the rate of extinctions in the past 400 years has been more rapid than normal, and that habitat loss or alteration is the primary reason for species endangerment. The UCS also argues that there has not been enough money put into the ESA for it to be successful, which is completely true. By its nature, the successful restoration of endangered species is expensive. Therefore, the Endangered Species Act would probably accomplish more if there was more funding directed toward the ESA.
The ESA requires a large number of funds to clear up its backlog of pending listings, to handle the administrative work needed to complete the paperwork and carry out the fieldwork associated with each new listing. In 2003, the FWS estimated that it will take over $153 million dollars to process candidate species and...
Please login to view the full essay...