Is the Endangered Species Act Now Endangered?
by Kelsey Doty - 3rd Period
It was announced on August 12, 2019 that the Trump administration is making changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and these changes are set to go into effect this month. Some of the big changes to the ESA that are being made are:
·
The threatened species will now not
automatically receive the same protections as endangered species (a threatened
species is one category below endangered). Each new threatened species added to
the list will be looked at on a "species-specific" basis as to the
best way conserve the species.
·
Economic factors now can be used to determine if
a species is placed on the endangered or threatened list.
·
The critical habitat for endangered or
threatened species are to be evaluated first where the species is currently
present before unoccupied areas are looked at.
·
Limits to how threats to species are determined
by allowing government officials to set the time frame for what is a threat in
the "foreseeable future."
Currently there are 1663 animal and plant species on the
endangered/threatened lists in the US. These changes would not affect any of
the current listings. They would affect how new species are added to the lists.
Bald Eagle - now flourishing in the US because of
conservation efforts
The green sea turtle is one of the species that is on the
Threatened list. I have traveled to Florida many times to visit relatives and on
several occasions I can remember seeing turtle nest sanctuaries. On many beaches
in Florida conservationists put barriers around green sea turtle nests so that
the nests are not disturbed. I also visited the Cayman Turtle Centre on Grand
Cayman island. Having seen and held these animals has made me appreciate and
understand the need to protect them. It has led to my interest in studying
biodiversity and conservation. When I heard about the changes being made to the
ESA I wondered how it would affect the green sea turtle.
Threatened Species: Green Sea Turtle
Defenders of the changes to the ESA say the changes will
still allow protection for the threatened and endangered species but will allow
more freedom in its implementation. In addition, they argue that the changes
also help increase transparency of the ESA regulations. U.S. Secretary of the
Interior David Bernhardt stated that, “The best way to uphold the
Endangered Species Act is to do everything we can to ensure it remains
effective in achieving its ultimate goal—recovery of our rarest species. The
Act’s effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation.”
Many conservationists believe that the changes to the ESA
will be detrimental. Leah Gerber, professor of conservation science and
founding director of the Center for Biodiversity Outcomes at Arizona State
University told Time Magazine that “The new rules completely undermine the
strength of the ESA. The point of the act is to prevent extinction, this is
going to do the opposite. It’s going to undermine efforts to recover species.”
Many scientists are upset because the changes seem to favor business and
industry as well as undermine the impact of climate change (as seen in the
changes around limits to defining "the foreseeable future").
Endangered Species: Desert Yellowhead - only known population
is found in Wyoming
Questions:
1. Do you believe the changes to the ESA are necessary?
2. Should economic factors be considered in saving an
endangered species?
3. Are these new changes to the ESA going to be helpful or
hurtful to endangered and/or threatened species?
Sources:
19 comments:
I believe these changes to the ESA are absolutely not necessary. They will be very detrimental to animals being added to threatened and endangered species. These changes are not benefitting the animals at all, instead they are benefiting the United States. Most of the time, endangered species are endangered because of us. Now, we are not considering the animals that we endangered when saving them. While economic value is a large part of the government and regulations, it should not be considered in this act. I believe the changes to this act will be very harmful to the threatened and endangered species. Without the level of conservation we had before, these animals will not flourish and return to its normal populations.
These changes to the law is unfair to the threatened species. Despite the fact that they are not worse off than endangered species, it won’t be long before these species become endangered. We have already endangered and threatened many species with our anthropogenic causes, and now this law will not even help them. The government should not base the law on economy, because it would be unfair to certain animals that they are not getting help because another animal is more economically beneficial. These changes may only help the endangered species, but we need to look at all species equally, especially without economics.
I believe the changes to the way laws protect these animals will be detrimental to species on the threat list. With more flexibility in the law, the species will not receive the less amount of care and protection from humans, and will end up in the endangered list. The point of the threat list is to prevent animals from becoming endangered, and if its protection decreases then more species will be endangered, and the point of trying to save species on the threat list will be gone
The changes that are being made to the ESA are ridiculous and should not go into effect. The animals and environments that they will affect will prove to serve as the downfall to species of the Earth. In a perfect world economic factors would not be considered, but they must be for actual protection and change to occur. Money must be put into programs, studies, trainers, specialists, and any other resources that are needed. They should not be the deciding factor, but they must be considered. The changes being made to the ESA will be harmful to endangered species. The expectation of saving animals will not be met and it will show in the number of species that dwindle and disappear.
I believe that the changes being made to ESA are outrageous and should not be made and be reverted instead.For example I see this as outrageous "The threatened species will now not automatically receive the same protections as endangered species (a threatened species is one category below endangered). Each new threatened species added to the list will be looked at on a "species-specific" basis as to the best way conserve the species."That part made me laugh especially when they said that threatened species are one lower than endangered species.Economic factors definitely need to go into play because if we don't have the economy to support these animals than what would we have.The new changes to the ESA are hurtful in ways because it puts the threatened species basically into endangered species if we don't have consideration for them
The topic of this blog has provoked a significantly greater amount of emotion in me than those of the past. The idea that our master plan, in this metaphorical chess match with the world, is to digress what we’ve accomplished is absolutely absurd. I personally have very little knowledge of politics and have yet to consider my own stance but, in the end, does any of that really matter when it comes down to saving our planet. There is science that continually supports the notion that we are not in the right track to environmental sustainability. These are facts that should not be thrown out the window as soon as it affects our own agenda. I understand that there are sides to each political perspective but removing the protective measures we have already taken to help our environment is detrimental in effect.
Making these sort of changes to the ESA just doesn’t make any sense. If the government isn’t going to put in a good amount of effort into saving these endangered species, it isn’t really going to do anything. This is a project that requires a certain amount of capitol and manpower to achieve these goals, and if that isn’t going to happen under the Trump administration then the ESA might as well be canned. It was already struggling to keep all of these species afloat with its previous funding, so with the cuts it has endured its like rubbing salt in the wound. The ESA needs to be restored to its former self, or just scrapped entirely.
I agree with scientist Leah Gerber’s opinion on the changes to the ESA. The new regulations are aimed to recover the animals already in critical extinction. This basically follows the idea that we can only take action after the damage has been done. Instead, we should focus on prevention and how to help species that are not even endangered in order to avoid problems in the foreseeable future. Such changes would be detrimental and the basis upon which they were enacted reflect a misguided approach to sustainability.
I believe these new rule changes to the ESA are unnecessary and it seems unfair between the threatened and endangered species. The rules tend to be more harmful for the animals and not exactly being a great benefit to them either. The economic factors shouldn’t be considered, even though they could be big part in our government; it won’t really help the animals in any way except for benefiting the government, for example, the funding for these rules. These changes will be hurtful to endangered and threatened species because they won’t be able to survive in these new regulations.
These changes are unnecessary and make it seem like the people enforcing the ESA are getting lazier. The favorable treatment given to only the endangered species and not the threatened ones will cause many of the species currrently threatened to fall into the endangered zone while we try to restore the current endangered ones. Ultimately, the species on the endangered list are going to add up and the ESA is not going to be able to protect them all, causing the extinction of many species. In addition, by only working with endangered species rather than endangered and threatened, it requires the ESA to do less work, when in reality, more work is being required of them.
I believe that the changes are utterly unnecessary, and in total a waste of time and resources. I feel that the economic factors should not at all be considered in the saving of endangered species. I feel like these new changes will not be beneficial at all to the endangered species and they will struggle to survive and wont have their needed freedoms.
These new changed to the ESA are unnecessary, and it is crucial for threatened species to receive the same treatment as endangered species. If threatened species receive the same treatment as endangered species, they will most definitely make the same comeback, if not a slightly better comeback, and economic factors should not play a factor in the recovery of a threatened species. These new changes will only end up hurting our environment and ultimately, ourselves.
I believe that the changes to the ESA are not required. Even though all they’re trying to do is help threatened species from being endangered, interfering will only make the problem worse. We are the main reason why these animals are on the endangered in the first place, and trying to fix it will ultimately fail. The Trump administration should examine all the factors before they move on with their changes to the ESA.
As more and more species continue to go endangered, it is important for the government to place regulations to ameliorate the situation. I believe the ESA changes are necessary and without them, organisms as we know it will vanish. There is one change, however, that I do disagree with. No, economic factors should not be considered when protecting endangered species. After all, animals are people too and causing them suffer for human economic benefit is wrong. These changes will be somewhat helpful.
I think that the changes made to the ESA are not necessary. Not protecting animals that are threatened species, doesn't make sense, because soon enough they will be endangered. I don't think economic factors should be considered, as they are animals who can and will go extinct if they are not protected. I think that it will be hurtful to both the animals and environment.
I believe that these changes were only for economic gains by the Trump administration. Instead, they should be prioritizing saving these threatened animals and preventing them from becoming endangered. Therefore, I believe these changes to the ESA are not necessary nor helpful. it is time that the government stopped looking at economic benefits but instead benefits to the climate and biodiversity of the planet.
The changes to the ESA are an attack to the biodiversity many environmentalists have spent decades working towards. I also have no qualms on the idea that the Trump administration is using repeals on the ESA for economic gain (for themselves. The government should stop looking at the financial gain and realize that if they keep this up there will be no valuable earth to profit from.
Many people like to think that endangered animals don’t need help, but that’s not the case. The trump administration just wants to benefit themselves over the lives of animals. These changes to the ESA could affect biodiversity around the world, I think that the no matter what the cost is we should strive to save animals from going extinct.
I believe that this change is a result of the lack of education and awareness of how important each and every species are in the grand scheme of biodiversity. (Maybe except for mosquitos). I do not believe that it is correct to determine a species value through economics as it causes us to view species materialistically. Overall, I believe that this change in the ESA may most likely be hurtful as it allows species to become vulnerable to extinction and decrease biodiversity. On the other hand, who knows what will happen, maybe it will benefit a species by causing it to adapt and grow through adversity.
Post a Comment